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 :

  1. 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 ?

  2. 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 ?

  3. 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 ?

  • I’m voting to close this question because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com Jan 3, 2023 at 14:40
  • @BlueDogRanch No please. Can I ask this on both ? Jan 3, 2023 at 14:41
  • What do you mean by "justice"? The problem is that you've bypassed the philosophical underpinnings of law – morality – and presumed an advanced stage of social development with specialized enforcers of morality. You can't both care and not care about morality.
    – user6726
    Jan 3, 2023 at 16:44

1 Answer 1


What should an ideal judiciary do

Justice according to the law.

The consequences of making decisions should not be taken into account unless it is the law that they should be. (Where there is no such law, consequential violence is supposed to be wholly dealt with by law enforcement, not by judiciary.)

Considering your 3 scenarios:

  • if it is the law that the inevitability of violence following a decision (which would otherwise be just) should steer the decision maker away from that decision, then it simply invalidates your premise that "Judgement favouring A will be justice": according to that law, justice will be a judgment favouring B.

  • if there is no law that decision makers should consider consequences of their decisions and decide so that the consequences are the least problematic, then an ideal judiciary should decide in favour of A in all your 3 scenarios. The consequential violence will then be the problem with whatever (e.g. the politicians, the legislation, the exec branch of the government etc.) and not with the judiciary.

  • Suppose there is no law of considering consequences. Should it go with Justice even if it will lead to the violences of such level that B will genocide A for it's anger that the judgement was just ? Jan 3, 2023 at 13:55
  • Your point 1 suggests that justice depends upon definitions of the law of country. But by saying justice, I meant for absolute justice.(Ignore this if you don't believe in absolute justice). Jan 3, 2023 at 13:57
  • @An_Elephant If you are asking about "absolute justice", you've chosen the wrong site. Try Politics or Philosophy SE.
    – Greendrake
    Jan 3, 2023 at 14:13
  • Actually I was asking this question on politics but thought it is more related to law SE. Am I allowed to copy paste the question to ask on politics SE ? Jan 3, 2023 at 14:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .