For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

Public opinion refers to the beliefs and points of view of the public on any particular topic. All the citizens have the right of expressing their views with regards to any issue that concerns them.It is not necessary that the public opinion should be restricted only to political issues but it may also include within its ambit all issues which are social in nature. In absence of the the views of the public, there cannot be a frequent social decision. It comprises of the desires, needs and thinking of the majority.It is the collective opinion which is possessed by the people in any society or state on any particular problem or issue.[1]

Over centuries there have been opposing and conflicting understandings of public opinion, particularly due to the reason that there has been development of new methods to measure public opinion in the fields of politics, commerce, religion and social activism.[2]

There is an essential requirement of public opinion in a democracy due to the reason that in its absence the government will be unable to decide the mannerof acting on the issues of the public.A majority of the natural issues concern the public.

Public Opinion

There cannot be a precise definition of public opinion. It can be referred to as the general opinion of the people on the issue of public interest. It is not the majority opinion. Furthermore, unanimity is also not required. In case the majority advocates an opinion espoused for the purpose of furthering their selfish gains then there is no involvement of public opinion. The minority must also support it.A. L. Lowell has rightly said that- “Public opinion is the opinion held by the majority and passively acquiesced in by the minority.”

In case a situation arises in which the majority opinion is directly in conflict with that if the minority, then we cannot call it public opinion. If the opinion causes detriment to the interest to any class or community then it cannot be the public opinion. Common good of the society must be the aim of public opinion.[3]

Public Opinion and Law in a Democracy:

Law and public opinion are closely knit together. In a democratic setup laws are deeply rooted in public opinion. In a democracy,legislature is the most important source of law.Legislature is a body of the representatives of the people. The will of the public is represented by thepublic.[4]

There is no doubt that laws are not framed directly by the people but one must not forget that the people elect their representatives to the Legislature. It should not be the tendency of the these representativesto not go against the will of the people.[5]

If the people or electors feel the need of replacing or modifying certain laws then their representatives do the needful. From this it is evident that close proximity is present between public opinion and law due to the reasonthat the will of the people is represented by the laws.

Laws which do not have the support and backing of the public opinion are not effective and people hardly obey these laws. For instance, after China attacked India in 1962, two laws were framed by the Indian Government: Compulsory Deposit Scheme and Gold Control Rules. However, the unfortunate part was that these laws did not have the support of public opinion.

Resultantly, demonstrations were carried out by people against these legislations. Eventually the Government had no option but to make modifications in these laws. From this it is clearly evident that in a democratic nation only those legislations are enacted which have the support of public opinion.

Effects of Public Opinion on Law:

Social change can be effected by legislation only when legal sanction is given to the prevalent social norm. A legislation cannot, by itself,replace one norm with another. Social change cannot be brought about by unaided social legislation. However, once it gets the backing of public opinion it can aid in initiating changes in social norm and subsequently a change in the social behaviour. This can be better understood with the help of certain examples of social legislations formulated in India.[6]

Various social legislations came up in India, before as well as after gaining independence,in order to bring about social change. A number of these became successful while there a few others which still remain as dead letters. Legislations securing the support of the public as well as of the social norms went on to become a great success.

For instance, in the year 1955 the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted which enforced monogamy and introduced the concepts of judicial separation and divorce. Though Hindus allowed for polygamy, monogamy was practised by majority of the people. Therefore, the public opinion supported monogamy.

A number of social changes could be brought about by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. All caste restrictions were abolished by the Act. All Hindus, irrespective of their castes, have the same rights regarding marriage. There is no bar on inter-caste marriages.[7]

A secular outlook is provided by the Act for marriages and registration of marriages is also enabled. Monogamy is enforced, therebybringing about equality of sexes in marital affairs. Both have been given equal rights for getting judicial separation and divorce on the mentioned legal grounds. Under the Act, different sects like Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Veera Shaivas, Harijans, Girijans and many others have been treated as ‘Hindus’. Therefore, it laid down the foundation for aUniform Civil Code in India.

Similarly, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,was able to attain success. For the first time absolute property rights were given to the Hindu women by the Act. The Act allowed both sons and daughters to get the right of inheritance of property.

The prevalent prejudices against getting her father’s property were removed by the Act. The Act could be easily enforced due to the simple reason that the public opinion was in favour of women getting equal rights and opportunities.[8]

The status of women has been uplifted by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Under the Act, a son or a daughter could be adopted. The Act makes it necessary to ge the wife’s consent in order to adopt a child. Widows have also been given the right to adopt.[9]

These laws were able to bring about changes in some areas of our life due to the reason that public opinion and the prevalent social norms and values support them. Whenever circumstances come up in which the norms of the society are ahead of the legal codes, there is a need of bringing the legal code in adherence with the present social values.

During the pre-independence phase in India, social legislations like — The Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856, Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, the Special Marriage Act, 1872, Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, etc., were able to become successfulin paving the way for changes and the growth and progress of the society because of the reason they were as per the trends and tides of the time.

In contrast, such laws and social legislations which are much much ahead of the social norms and values and those which do not have the required support from the public are bound to fail.

The Parliament passed the Untouchability Offences Act, 1955,as per Article 35 of the Constitution of India. Untouchability was made a cognizable offence under the Act. (However, this law was replaced by the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976).

From the legal and constitutional point of view, there has been a removal of all the social disabilities of the Harijans. However, the harsh reality is thateven today the Harijans suffer from numerous social disabilities,particularly in the rural regions. In this case the social norm lags behind law, especially in those villages in which untouchability is still widely practiced.

People’s way of life has not been affected by the institutionalisation of this new rule due to the reason thatmost of the people in the villages have not yet adopted this norm. It is evidentthat social practice cannot be altered merely by enacting a law. For the purpose of making such social legislations effective there is a need of a social movement which educates the public.

Lawsconcerning prohibition have also been a grand failure because of the lack of support from the public. A crusade against drunkenness was launched by Gandhiji. He even made efforts of persuading Congressmen for workingtowards a society which is totally free from alcoholism. However, since 1937, prohibition has been strongly been being opposed. It has not received the support from all the Congressmen.

Similarly there was failure of the Hyderabad Beggary Act, 1940,which was enacted for the purpose of preventing the beggars from begging. Some other states like Bengal, Bombay, Karnataka also formulated similar laws in order to prevent beggary.

However, beggary was still prevalent in these states. Similarly, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,has been inefficient which has made the giver and also the receiver of dowry liable for punishment. In other words, this law has not affected the norms of the society and, thus, the society abides by the social norms instead of legal norms in these kinds of matters.[10]

In such kinds of situations there is the production of an effect which has been referred to by Festinger as “forced compliance”. Till the timethere is forced compliance in the behaviour, the new values cannot be internalised and the law will continue to be disobeyed. Forced compliance can only result in creation of a difference and inconsistency between public behaviour and private belief.

Effect of Public Opinion on Judgments of Court:

It is not possible to have a judiciary that is independent of the society and, therefore, their interaction is unescapable. However,one cannot surmount the rule of law. Certain things are there which cannot be changed by judiciary and there are certain things which need it to show courage for any change. In order to understand the difference which is there between these two, wisdom is required.

Rule of law is dominated by the public opinion. What is surprising to note is that the Court is also getting influenced and impacted by the opinion of the public. It has been opined by Justice Dipak Misra, in his Nirbhaya case[11]judgment: “It is manifest that the wanton lust, the servility to absolutely unchained carnal desire and slavery to the loathsome bestiality of passion ruled the mindset of the appellants to commit a crime which can summon with immediacy ‘tsunami’ of shock in the mind of the collective and destroy the civilised marrows of the milieu in entirety.”

In the case ofSantosh Kumar Satisbhusan Bariyar vs Maharashtra (2009)[12], it was held by the Supreme Court that a crucial role is played by public opinion at the time of sentencing, and thus, it has become a paramount necessity that the court makes the declaration that public opinion should not be treated in the form of a significantfeaturewhile giving punishment,taking into consideration the dominant role played by media trials during the award of death sentences. Nevertheless, in the case ofGurvail Singh vs Punjab (2013)[13], a contrary viewpoint was put forth by the Apex Court that public opinion is a relevant factor which has an influence over the decisions of the Court.

In various other judgments such as Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[14], M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra[15] or Hussainara Khatoon  v. State of Bihar[16], the public sentiments creeped into the judicial proceedings and the courtmade its interpretation of the legislations in such a manner that led to evolution of law into giving more rights to the citizens.

In the infamous Delhi Gang Rape Case[17], it was the result of the public furore after the incident which made sure that the accused were granted death sentence by the court.

In the Navtej Sandhu[18] case, it was specifically stressed by the Supreme Court that only the conviction of the convict will satisfy the “conscience of the society”.

In the 2016 National Anthem case[19]mixed reactions were received of the mandatory direction which was given to play national anthem before movies at cinema halls. Violence ensued as a result of the misuse and compulsive nature of the judgment. After numerous public debates and deliberations, the judgment was diluted in order to give it a non-mandatory direction.

The furore and reaction received after the passing of the Sabarimala[20] judgment strengthens the argument of the restivenessprevalent among the masses and the indirect impact which it has on the process of law making.

On numerous occassions miscarriage of justice is prevented by media publicity and it helps in fast tracks cases. Justice would not have been bestowed upon Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattu, Ruchika Girhotra, et al, if it was not for the public opinion which was created by media. Manu Sharma, the killer of Jessica, was given an acquittal by the trial court, and he was brought to justice by the High Court only after the acquittal scared the hell out of people. In the same way, trial court acquitted Santosh Singh, the rapist and murderer of Priyadarshini Mattoo. His father was employed as a senior officer in the Delhi police and benefit of doubt was given to it. The Delhi High Court kept the appeal against the acquittal pending for a period of more than six years on the inanereason that documents which were in Hindi could not be translated into English. However, as efforts were made by the father of Priyadarshini to mobilise the civil society and hit the street with candle march and the media took up the cause, the accused was given conviction within a record 42 days.

Various positive instances are there in which media activism and pressure of public opinion has resulted in the delivery of justice. However,evidence should and must be the sole basis of judgments and sentencing, else there is very high likelihood that innocents may be arrested for the purpose of calming down unravelled public temper and be made a scapegoat.

The Methodology is a doctrinal research strategy that outlines the way in which a research work is to be undertaken and, among other things, identifies the methods to be used in it. The present study is done with the help of secondary sources i.e. books, magazines, journals and websites etc.

1. Dr. Pandey, J.N., (Constitutional Law of India), Central Law Agency (54th edn. 2017). 2. Prof. Bhattacharyya T., (Interpretations of Statutes), Central Law Agency, (ed. 5th, 2003) 3. Dr. Pandey, J.N., (Constitutional Law of India), Central Law Agency (54th edn. 2017). 4. Dr. Paranjape, N.V., ‘Studies in Jurisprudence & Legal Theory’, Central Law Agency (ed. 5th, 2008). 5. Lemuel Ely Quigg –Court of Public Opinion- Quigg, L. (1887). The Court of Public Opinion. The North American Review, 144(367), 625-630. 6. Price, V. (2008). The public and public opinion in political theories. In Donsbach, W., & Traugott, M. W. The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 11-24). London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781848607910. 7. Connie de Boer, Eric Shiraev and Richard Sobel (2006). People and Their Opinions. Thinking Critically About Public Opinion. New York: Pearson Longman, 368 pp., ISBN 0–321–07898–5 8. Benjamin N. Schoenfeld Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, No. 4 (October-December 1968), pp. 309-328 Published by: Indian Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41854290 9. José Carlos Del Ama Source: Human Studies, Vol. 32, No. 4 (December 2009), pp. 441-460 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25652838

1. Price, V. (2008). The public and public opinion in political theories. In Donsbach, W., & Traugott, M. W. The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 11-24). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
2. Ibid.
3. Connie de Boer, Eric Shiraev and Richard Sobel (2006). People and Their Opinions. Thinking Critically About Public Opinion. New York: Pearson Longman, 368 pp., ISBN 0–321–07898–5
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Dr. Paranjape, N.V., ‘Studies in Jurisprudence & Legal Theory’, Central Law Agency (ed. 5th, 2008).
7. Hindu Marriage Act of 1955
8. Ibid.
9. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
10. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
11. Mukesh Kumar & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2015 SCCOnline SC 1118.
12. Santosh Kumar Satisbhusan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498.
13. Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 10 SCC 631.
14. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675.
15. M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548.
16. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360.
17. Supra note 2.
18. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
19. Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, 2016 SCCOnline SC 1449.
20. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1