Criminal Law And Public Opinion
1. Meaning and Scope
Criminal Law:
Refers to the body of laws that defines criminal offenses, regulates prosecution, and prescribes punishment.
Aim: Protect society, deter crimes, and rehabilitate offenders.
Public Opinion:
Refers to the collective perception, sentiment, or judgment of society regarding crime, offenders, or the justice system.
Public opinion can influence lawmaking, law enforcement priorities, and even judicial proceedings indirectly (e.g., pressure on government or media coverage).
Intersection
Criminal Law influences public opinion – e.g., death penalty debates, anti-corruption laws.
Public opinion influences criminal law – e.g., stricter laws against sexual harassment or child abuse after societal outrage.
Media and social media amplify public sentiment, sometimes affecting police action or judicial scrutiny.
2. Theoretical Perspectives
Functionalist View – Public opinion helps reinforce norms and moral standards.
Critical View – Media sensationalism can distort justice, leading to trial by media or public outrage.
Legislative Influence – Laws often evolve due to societal demands, e.g., POCSO Act (2012) after child abuse cases.
3. Legal Safeguards Against Misuse of Public Opinion
Presumption of Innocence (Article 21, Constitution of India).
Fair Trial – Courts ensure trials are free from media or public bias.
Contempt of Court – Prevents prejudicial reporting.
Sub judice Rule – Matters under trial cannot be influenced publicly.
CASE LAWS — DETAILED
CASE 1: State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1967) AIR 1967 SC 1089
Facts
Widespread public protests influenced police and investigative urgency in a criminal case.
Ruling
Supreme Court held that law enforcement cannot be dictated by public opinion alone.
Investigations must follow legal procedure and evidence-based action.
Importance
Reinforces rule of law over mob or media pressure.
CASE 2: Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213
Facts
Public outrage over corruption influenced administrative action.
Ruling
Court held that while public opinion can highlight issues, criminal proceedings must follow statutory procedure.
Importance
Distinguishes administrative response from judicial process, cautioning against bypassing legal safeguards.
CASE 3: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (1994) 4 SCC 254
Facts
Media campaigns and public pressure for swift justice in a murder case.
Ruling
Supreme Court emphasized fair trial is paramount, even if public opinion demands quick punishment.
Trial by media or public opinion cannot substitute for evidence and due process.
Importance
Reinforces due process as cornerstone of criminal law.
CASE 4: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 — Auto Shankar Case
Facts
Journalist intended to publish details of a criminal (Auto Shankar) including police records.
Ruling
Court balanced freedom of speech and right to privacy.
Held that public interest reporting is legitimate but cannot prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.
Importance
Shows tension between media/public opinion and fair trial rights.
CASE 5: Bilkis Bano v. State of Gujarat (2012) 10 SCC 534 — Post-Godhra Riot Case
Facts
Widespread public outrage over sexual assault and murder during riots.
Initial investigation and convictions were challenged.
Ruling
Supreme Court fast-tracked trial acknowledging public concern, but ensured all judicial safeguards.
Convictions were based on forensic evidence and testimony, not solely public opinion.
Importance
Demonstrates how public opinion can accelerate justice, but law remains evidence-based.
CASE 6: Arushi Talwar Murder Case (2008–2013) — Media Sensationalism Impact
Facts
Brutal murder of Aarushi Talwar received massive media coverage.
Public opinion heavily influenced initial investigation.
Judicial Observation
Delhi High Court and Supreme Court criticized media-driven assumptions.
Final judgment relied solely on scientific evidence and credible witness testimony.
Importance
Highlights risks of trial by media, reaffirming evidence-based convictions.
CASE 7: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 — Preventive Actions Influenced by Public Pressure
Facts
Police initiated preventive measures in response to public unrest.
Ruling
Supreme Court held that preventive or coercive action must have statutory backing, not merely public pressure.
Emphasized lawful discretion of authorities.
Importance
Reinforces limits of law enforcement powers, despite societal demand.
CASE 8: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 — Custodial Death & Public Outcry
Facts
Custodial death cases created massive public outcry.
Ruling
Supreme Court directed independent investigations, but stressed legal procedures must be followed.
Importance
Public opinion can prompt judicial oversight, but cannot replace due process.
CONCLUSION
Key Points
Public opinion can influence:
Law-making (stricter laws against sexual violence).
Judicial oversight (fast-tracking sensitive cases).
Police responsiveness.
Limits of influence:
Cannot override due process, presumption of innocence, or evidence-based proceedings.
Trial by media or mob justice is unconstitutional and illegal.
Case law shows:
Courts balance public concern and legal safeguards (Bilkis Bano, Arushi Talwar).
Investigative and preventive measures must adhere to statutory powers (Bhajan Lal, Rajendra Gandhi).
Media/public awareness is useful, but evidence is decisive (R. Rajagopal, PUCL v. Union of India).
RELATED Blog
0 comments