The Myth of Objectivity in Indian Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence, the study of the nature and principles of law, is often seen as an abstract and esoteric subject. But what happens when we take a closer look at its application in the Indian legal system? In this article, we'll delve into the myth of objectivity in Indian jurisprudence and explore the realities of justice in India.

Objectivity: A Myth or Reality?

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was written in 1860 and is still in force today, the concept of objectivity is deeply ingrained. Section 2(i) defines 'law' as 'the rule, prescribed by the State, regulating the rights and duties of its citizens.' But what happens when the State itself is seen as an oppressive entity? The myth of objectivity is shattered when we consider the historical context in which the IPC was written. The British colonial government used the law to maintain its power and control over India, often disregarding the rights and interests of its citizens.

The Role of the Judiciary

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the country's jurisprudence. In landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court of India established the doctrine of basic structure, which holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended. This decision was a significant departure from the earlier view that the Constitution was a mere document that could be amended at will. However, even in such cases, the judiciary's objectivity has been questioned. Critics argue that the Court has often taken a narrow and conservative approach to interpreting the Constitution, prioritizing the interests of the state over those of the individual.

Realities of Justice in India

The realities of justice in India are far from ideal. Despite the country's impressive economic growth, the legal system remains inaccessible and unaffordable for many Indians. The Indian judicial system is notorious for its slow pace, with cases dragging on for years, even decades. The lack of infrastructure and resources has led to a severe backlog of cases, with millions of people waiting for justice. In this context, it's clear that the myth of objectivity in Indian jurisprudence is just that – a myth. The Indian legal system is shaped by a complex interplay of historical, social, and economic factors, which often prioritize the interests of the state over those of the individual. As the Supreme Court of India once observed in Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab (1986), "Justice is not a static concept, but a dynamic and fluid one." Indeed, it's time to rethink our approach to jurisprudence in India and prioritize a more equitable and just system. "Justice is not to be taken in an abstract sense, but with reference to the circumstances of society." - Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)