Building a civil and just society

The common understanding of the law is that it is a formalised set of rules, regulations, and statutes often enforced through societal institutions

The common understanding of the law is that it is a formalised set of rules, regulations, and statutes often enforced through societal institutions. For the State, the law is the decree it can use to maintain order and police societal progression. Justice, on the other hand, is much more than an esoteric political construct couched in jargon and conventions. Justice is the law’s ultimate purpose, but it is sometimes an insufficient instrument for pursuing justice. After all, society is not static. On Saturday, Supreme Court judge Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud chose to talk about the qualitative difference between law and justice, as he addressed a gathering of young law graduates.

The lesson is important, the messaging is clear, and the appeal aims for a just society, through criticism of laws that have failed to march with the changing times and the difficulties created by transforming society. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Highlighting how the law does not necessarily end in justice, the judge emphasised that critiquing existing laws is a strong tool to advance justice. Justice Chandrachud has been associated with several verdicts that elevated the principle of constitutional morality, laying down that when laws “differ” from justice, they must be made to “defer” to justice. In its 2018 judgment that de-criminalised gay consensual sex between adults, justice Chandrachud wrote that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provided for “rule by the law instead of the rule of law” while striking down the penal provision that perpetuated stereotypes about a class of citizens. In the same year, justice Chandrachud, sitting on another Constitution bench, annulled the colonial-era law criminalising adultery under Section 497 of IPC. An age-old practice legalised by State rule was declared unconstitutional in the Sabarimala temple case too, when the order underlined that stopping a class of women on the grounds of celibacy and menstruation is one among countless ways in which patriarchy works.

The judge, in his speech, implored young law graduates to work toward achieving justice through social movements and shaping political and cultural understanding. The lesson is important, the messaging is clear, and the appeal aims for a just society, through criticism of laws that have failed to march with the changing times and the difficulties created by transforming society. Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is imperative since it offers helpful language for debates on social problems and sets off the possibility of true justice — beyond the horizon of the present world and legal order.