Incorporation of public opinion in judicial process leads to risk of ignoring purpose of law: Senior Advocates discuss

Speaking at the 2nd Justice HR Khanna Memorial Symposium on Sunday, Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Siddharth Bhatnagar deliberated on how public opinion could possibly shape judicial verdicts..The duo spoke on the topic Vox Populi vs. Rule of Law: Supreme Court of India, at the symposium organised by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow and National Law University, Odisha, in partnership with Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation)..In his address, Gupta discussed about the effects of public opinion on judicial verdicts by distinguishing between a trial by jury and a trial by a judge.Gupta emphasized that since public opinion was shaped by political and religious sentiments, and was moulded by the narrative pushed by the media, such opinion could pose a risk to the purpose of law."Public opinion is not based on judicial considerations and is open to be moulded by the digital media. The general public is conditioned to think about a particular situation in a particular manner, being constantly fed that narrative by the media. The general public is not trained to understand the intricacies of law. They are not trained to consider the judicial precedents, evidence. Any incorporation of public opinion in judicial process is fraught with the inherent risk of ignoring the purpose of law," Gupta elaborated.He speculated that in view of this fact, jury trials came to an end in India..To buttress this point, he cited the recent trial in the defamation suit filed by Hollywood actor Johnny Depp against actress and model Amber Heard. The verdict by the public, according to Gupta, was pronounced much earlier than the verdict by the jury, as the media and streaming channels were driving the trial in favour of Depp. "Amber Heard’s depositions were converted into mocking memes and circulated by millions on public platforms. The jury had access to all the ridicule that Heard was being subjected to. The ultimate verdict was dependent on the portrayal of central characters. Depp’s imperfections were projected as flawed but human and vulnerable, while Heard’s imperfections were used to undermine and view her as completely monstrous," Gupta said. This selective consideration by the public perfectly encapsulated the risk of vox populi being given preference over rule of law, Gupta concluded."The dangers manifest in the jury trial allows public opinion to take the fore," he said..During his speech, Bhatnagar asserted that the independence of the judiciary was crucial for resolving conflict between public opinion and rule of law. "Protection of rights through the rule of law must not only be balanced, but must take precedence over any right asserted by the State through the majority opinion. It is absolutely possible to have an absolute democracy, where the State is permitted to enforce its powers to threaten the liberty of individuals themselves. On the contrary, we can never have excess of the rule of law. Our Constitution has endured difficult times solely on account of the insistence to the rule of law by our citizens and courts," he said..Bhatnagar also contended that the power of judicial review bestowed upon the constitutional courts was instrumental for maintaining rule of law in the country. He stated that any act or regulation passed by Parliament or the State Legislature which constituted of elected representatives of the citizens could be set aside by a constitutional court on the ground that it violated fundamental rights of citizens. "All modern democracies act through elected legislatures. The fact that elected Parliament would represent majority rule is the basic principle of democracy, but this only authorises the actions of the State, it does not make them legitimate. This is why democracies must have methods of limiting or diluting powers of the majority through law and judicial processes," he said..The senior lawyer added that judges did not decide cases in accordance with public opinion; in fact, their powers were wide enough to fill the gaps in statutes for deciding disputes. The Supreme Court was also able to strictly scrutinize the decisions of the legislature within the existing framework without trespassing in legislative or executive territory, Bhatnagar opined. He went on to say,"When we look at the laws made by Parliament or legislatures, there are numerous instances where these laws are struck down partially or wholly for either violating federal distribution of powers that is to say legislative competence, or by contravening fundamental rights or any other provision of the Constitution. Merely because laws have the imprimatur of Parliament or state legislature as elected bodies has never protected them from scrutiny."The superior courts have a duty to guard fundamental rights and prevent infringement to rule of law even if the infringement is by elected representatives, Bhatnagar reiterated."The mere fact that the nation is governed by elected representatives of the people is no guarantee that constitutional rights will be respected," he concluded..Social and digital media used for personal attacks on judges, need to be regulated: Justice JB Pardiwala.Fundamental duties precede fundamental rights, has deep roots in concept of Dharma: Justice Vikram Nath