Aim of study

1. To study the Public Opinion. 2. To discuss the Public Opinion and Law in a Democracy: 3. To analyse
the effects of Public Opinion on Law 4. To review the effect of Public Opinion on Judgments of Court.

Review of Literature
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 manner of acting on the issues of the public. A
majority of the natural issues concern the public.

Main Text
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.

Methodology
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.

Conclusion There is an important place for public opinion in each and every nation due to the
reason that in the absence of obtaining opinion of the public,a government cannot become successful.
A democratic government works for the welfare of the people and while talking about public opinion
the first word which comes to our mind is public or people our country can be called a country only
by the people. Public opinion comes under the scope and ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India as it relates to the freedom of speech and expression. Completely acknowledging and realizing
the importance of public opinion, J.S. Mill very strongly supported the essential requirement for an
absolutely free flow of public opinion in the society. He was certain that each opinion should be
allowed to freely flow in the society as it is necessary for the emergence of a true public opinion. Laski
was of the view that even during a period of war, freedom of public opinion should not be suppressed.
Therefore, it is evident that law and public opinion have a very close and proximate relationship. Both
public opinion as well as law are primarily concerned with social good and the common welfare of the
people. According to P S. Mathur, “Law should be not firmly rooted in public opinion but should be a
little ahead of it”.