The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in Umar Khalid’s case (2025) has revived the debate on whether the judiciary should uphold constitutional principles in the face of strong popular sentiments. 

• Courts are often pressured by political commentary, social media outrage, and public mood, but their true test lies in protecting constitutional morality over populism.

Role of the Judiciary as Envisioned by the Constitution-Makers

1. Constitutional Guardian: Judiciary was tasked with upholding constitutional supremacy through judicial review.
   • Example: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) safeguarded the “basic structure doctrine.”
2. Protector of Fundamental Rights: Citizens were empowered to directly approach the courts for rights enforcement.
   • Example: Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution.”
3. Independent Arbiter: Insulation from political interference ensured impartiality.
   • Example: Judges enjoy security of tenure and fixed salaries under Articles 124 & 217.
4. Counter-Majoritarian Role: Designed to check majoritarian impulses that may harm minorities.
   • Example: Striking down bans on women in Haji Ali Dargah (2016) and Sabarimala (2018).
5. Balancing Power: Judiciary acts as a check on executive and legislative excesses.
   • Example: Indira Gandhi’s election was struck down in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).

Arguments in Favour of Considering Popular Sentiments

1. Democratic Responsiveness: Courts cannot appear aloof from the sovereign will of the people.
   • Example: Recognition of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional (2017) resonated with mass demands for gender justice.
2. Social Legitimacy of Laws: Judgments gain acceptance only when aligned with public conscience.
   • Example: Decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Johar (2018) was widely celebrated.
3. Institutional Trust: Sensitivity to social sentiments prevents alienation of citizens.
   • Example: Reservation policies upheld in Indra Sawhney (1992) maintained public faith in social justice.
4. Pragmatic Acceptance: Gradual accommodation ensures smoother enforcement of judgments.
   • Example: Expansion of OBC reservations was implemented in phases to avoid backlash.
5. Democratic Stability: Popularly acceptable judgments reduce chances of unrest.
   • Example: Ayodhya Verdict (2019) balanced faith with legal principles, maintaining peace.

Arguments Against Yielding to Popular Sentiments

1. Supremacy of the Constitution: Legitimacy of judiciary flows from law, not public approval.
   • Example: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld constitutional limits despite political opposition.
2. Safeguarding Minority Rights: Courts must protect vulnerable groups against majority opinion.
   • Example: Navtej Johar (2018) protected LGBTQ+ rights despite conservative resistance.
3. Preventing Tyranny of Majority: Unchecked populism can erode pluralism.
   • Example: Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) upheld rights of Jehovah’s Witness students against nationalist majoritarian demands.
4. Rule of Law over Mob Pressure: Judgments must rest on law, not sentiment or hashtags.
   • Example: Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down Section 66A despite its popularity with authorities.
5. Long-term Constitutional Vision: Principles endure beyond temporary passions.
   • Example: Puttaswamy (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right, anticipating digital era challenges.

Challenges in Maintaining Balance

1. Media & Social Media Pressure: Instant outrage can indirectly influence perceptions.
   • Example: Intense social media campaigns during Nirbhaya case (2012).
2. Politicisation of Legal Issues: Political framing often portrays judgments as partisan.
   • Example: Zakia Jafri case (2022) attracted political interpretations.
3. Complexity of Special Laws: Security laws like UAPA demand balancing liberty and national security.
   • Example: Umar Khalid bail denial (2025) underlined this dilemma.
4. Public Distrust in Adverse Outcomes: When judgments defy popular mood, judiciary risks criticism.
   • Example: Sohrabuddin encounter case acquittals (2018) led to accusations of bias.
5. Doctrinal Ambiguity: Inconsistent judicial philosophy may cause arbitrariness.
   • Example: Conflicting interpretations in reservation in promotions cases.

Way Forward

1. Reassert Constitutional Morality: Courts must uphold values over majoritarian impulses.
   • Example: Ambedkar’s reminder that constitutional morality must be cultivated.
2. Strengthen Judicial Reasoning: Clear, reasoned judgments reduce misinterpretation.
   • Example: Detailed reasoning in Ayodhya verdict (2019).
3. Promote Legal Literacy: Public awareness of constitutional values counters mob sentiment.
   • Example: Outreach through NCERT civics curricula.
4. Institutional Resilience: Safeguards like transparent collegium processes strengthen independence.
   • Example: Second Judges Case (1993) strengthened judicial appointments independence.
5. Balance with Sensitivity: While upholding principles, courts may phase reforms for smoother acceptance.
   • Example: Phased GST rollout after SC upheld its constitutional validity.

Conclusion

The judiciary derives authority from constitutional principles, not public popularity. While sensitivity to social sentiments ensures legitimacy, surrendering to populism risks undermining minority rights, constitutional morality, and the rule of law. 

• As Ambedkar warned, democracy survives on institutional morality, not transient passions. Upholding principles in the face of popularity is thus the judiciary’s greatest responsibility in safeguarding India’s constitutional democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF