The situation described below is purely hypothetical created by me for the sake of question.
Suppose in a democratic country there exist more than one community on the basis of religion, caste, etc and a conflict arises among two of them (say A and B, A is minority)for an issue of X(X may be any controversial event, claim for property rights,etc). The government currently in power is highly biased and favoured for B for it's political benifit. (Like getting votes,etc.) The judiciary is officially declared to be independent of the government.
According to the moral, logical and historical basis suppose that the wishes of community A is more favoured than community B. Judgement favouring A will be justice while for B will be injustice. Judgement in favour of A will surely dis-please the majority B. What should an ideal judiciary do if :
It is surely known that there will be intense communal violences among A and B if justice is provided i.e. judgement is in favour of A; thus bad for nation's health ?
Same as (1) above except that it is known that communal violences may happen, but will be less intense (i.e. very short term violence/riots) and country will soon become stable ?
Same as (1) above except that it known that there is a significant indication that a judgement in favour of B will give B this as an advantage for future also and hence in long term , B will always be tyrannical on A for it's benifits ?