SUBJECT- Law and Justice in a Global World

TOPIC- NAVIGATING THE ‘UNJUST & JUST’ DILEMMA WHILE DELIVERING

JUSTICE WITH HELP OF GLOBAL THEORIES AND PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE

SUBMITTED BY- Himanshu Malik

ROLL NO. - 210616110042

L.L.M. (2nd Semester)

SUBMITTED TO- Dr. Amrendra Kumar

Assistant Professor (Law)

1
I. INTRODUCTION

The widest possible connotation of Justice is that “it is the principle that people get what they
deserve, with the interpretation of what constitutes 'deserving', influenced by a wide range of
fields and viewpoints, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality,
law, religion, equity, and fairness.” The state tries to improve justice by running courts and
enforcing their decisions, but are the courts doing justice to their work by adhering to ‘inclusive’
notion of justice or ‘objective’ notion of justice? What may constitute justice for one may be
perceived as injustice by another. Justice cannot be a zero sum game, there is always a price paid
for it. The only duty of the court is to ensure that the price paid is least and not unjust.
Courts and judges all over the world, including India, have been haunted by the dilemma of
ensuring justice in true sense, always in a dilemma that their decision might lead to miscarriage
of justice. That is to be avoided at all cost. For this very purpose the globally accepted sound
principles come to the rescue of the judges and judicial institutions, to cut through this dilemma
and ensure justice that not only reflects the judgement of court based on facts (like maths or
science) but also ensure that justice is seen to have been done. However any decision can never
satisfy all the stakeholders but the least that can be done is that such decision is perceived as
‘just’ by majority of the stakeholders and thereby increasing the adherence to the decision.
Which can be ensured, if it is backed by reasons. This paper intends to explore these very
reasons and reasoning behind any decision based on philosophies of global thinkers, theories and
other globally accepted principles. Futher we will see how these theories can be aligned with the
conditions (legal, social, economic) of India, to leverage the best out of them with the help of
decided case laws and ensure justice that can be termed as truly ‘globally’ and worthy of
reference world over.
The most current conception of justice1 emphasizes the importance of public reason in
determining what may be done to make societies less unjust. For which influence of various
global perspectives, theories and conventions, is imperative to be studied for understanding true
reasoning behind any decision and how it has been adopted and can be adopted by judicial
institutions across India to increase legitimacy of their decisions.

1
Humayun Rasheed Khan, “Shifting the focus from pursuing justice to preventing manifest injustices”, 2 IJRHAL
43-47 (2014).

2
II. UNDERSTANDING CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

It is said that “Justice is abstract, law is the fact”, however, law was just a medium/ a vehicle to
achieve justice. Sometimes even laws are struck-down to achieve justice. Even if we have
trouble putting it into words, we believe we grasp the concept of justice. Justice is defined by
“the connection between the individual and the state, and it means that the state respects all
people equally and strives to resolve disputes based on facts and objective standards rather than a
subjective judgement.”2 Fairness is the broadest definition of justice. Justice cannot guarantee
that every conflict is resolved "right" or without errors, but it can ensure that the process by
which choices are made is fair and delivers an acceptable result in the aggregate, even if justice
fails in a single case3. When political power and economic opportunity are distributed as evenly
as feasible, or when the social and political system is structured in such a way that it tends
toward a just distribution even if it is not attained, justice is achieved. Justice is definitely an
ideal, and ideals should be pursued but not always realized. As a result, justice is defined “not by
the outcome but by the fairness of the process that leads to it.”

There are two major concepts of justice in the history of ideas. They are as follows:

1. A numerical concept of justice is one in which everyone gets an equal slice of the pie. The
norm was taken so far by the Greek city states that numerous offices were filled by lot. No
special knowledge or qualification was required to hold an office. Jeremy Bentham puts it this
way: "Everyone is to count for one, nobody for more than one." 4

2. Justice as a geometrical idea - It is a concept of appropriate equality. It translates to "equal

share to equals" and "unequal share to unequals." It means that power and patronage should be
distributed in accordance to an individual's worth or contribution. This is something that both
Pluto and Aristotle believe in. 5

2
Thom Brooks (ed.), Oxford Handbook on Global Justice 277-284 (Oxford Handbooks, London, 3rd edn., April
2020)
3
Ibid.
4
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, I Utilitarianism and Other Essays 228-234 (Penguin Classics, India, 2nd
edn., 1987).
5
Ibid.

3
III. DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE

The administration of justice included an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” The goal was
to keep future crimes from happening. As a result, primitive justice was exclusively negative in
nature. It is founded on established morals, tradition, or custom, but the notion of justice has later
evolved.

Martin Luther King on Justice -In his Letter From Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
lays out the steps for determining injustice: gathering evidence, negotiating, self-purification, and
direct action. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power dominant group imposes on a
minority group but does not make obligatory on itself” he argues. Great injustice has existed
throughout human history, according to this definition.

Plato’s Justice Philosophy - Public education, philosopher-kings as rulers, and an aristocratic

government are all part of Plato's vision6 of a just and fair society. He believed that “men and
women, despite their differences, should be treated equally.” In Plato's universe, just rules would
be based on these ideas. Plato's views were radical at the time, but we have seen examples of his
thought throughout history. Today, the state educates our society's children, and it is unlawful to
treat men and women separately, as the bulk of individuals concur.

Thomas Hobbes - “Justice is merely the advantage of the stronger” 7 declared Thrasymachus, a
Greek philosopher. Thomas Hobbes was the most ardent supporter of this ideology. Under the
rule of an absolute sovereign, all laws are legitimate and justifiable, according to Hobbes'
political philosophy. Even if a law makes no sense to citizens, he believes it is legitimate because
all laws are designed to safeguard the greater good. Within a government, he never regards
insurrection as legitimate. Hobbes considers the greatest justified activity to be that which is
taken to defend oneself from death.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - In a world ruled by Rousseau, Hobbes idea of justice would crumble. In
some aspects, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's thoughts about fair laws are nearly the polar opposite of

6
Dahl, Norman O., L Plato’s Defense of Justice 809-34 (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1991)
https://doi.org/10.2307/2108183
7
BERTMAN, MARTIN A., VI Hobbes on ‘Good’, 59–74 (The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, 1975)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43155041

4
Hobbes'8; he believes that “just laws are created via consensus and full participation of the
people.” Many laws in Rousseau's society could be seen as unjust because Rousseau believes
that fair requires that everyone agrees. That will eventually lead to majoritarianism. Rousseau,
like Hobbes, believes in the common good; in his society, the sovereign is the majority.

III. UNDERSTANDING THE ‘UNJUST & JUST’ DILEMMA

In today's world, “a huge number of academics prefer to refer to the concept of justice as social
justice to maintain the social order (as primary objective of law). It is defined as “the equality of
all persons in a society, with no discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, creed, color, sex, or
status.” Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 9 was enacted
to ensure ‘justice’ to members of these communities from any ‘socially unacceptable’ act that
perpetuates atrocities. The act stipulates cognizable offence and provides for arrest even before
premilinary inquiry/investigation10, with no provision for anticipatory bail 11. But for many this
may be utterly ‘unjust’, due to fear of inexplicable arrest and similarly judiciary was quick to
respond after a survey12 conducted in the year 2017, it was found that a total of 11060 cases were
investigated under this Act, out of which 5347 were false. The apex court found this ‘unjust’ and
struck down the provision in Dr. Shubhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and
ors.13 However the legislature, due to various reasons found this decision ‘unjust’ and reversed
the effect with the 2018 amendment of the act 14 and nullified the judgement. However, when
faced with the dilemma of sticking to its notion of justice or be uphold the amendment,
surprisingly the apex court this time contradicting its own concept of ‘just’ness, upheld the
amendment and overruled its own position in Prithvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India15. This type
of perplexed tangling of what is ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ often create mental block for judges.

8
Reisert, Joseph R., XXX Authenticity, Justice, and Virtue in Taylor and Rousseau 305-330 (The Journal of Polity, 1999)
https://doi.org/10.2307/3235492
9
Act No. 33 of 1989, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b52a1c.html
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
See, survey available at https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2017-18/P-1096_PPTs/2.False%20Cases
%20under%20SC-ST.pdf
13
AIR 2018 SC 1498
14
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act of 2018.
15
WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 1015 OF 2018

5
Some argue that social justice entails allocating each person's fair piece of the social pie. But
how this equitable distribution of social benefits and rights based on the rule of law and justice 16
can be demarcated that it appears just to all the people. The expropriation of land under
Zamindari abolition acts (inclusive of purchased land) and distribution of the same among
destitute people, has exacerbated more social injustice in some parts by disturbing the traditional
landlord-tenants relationship17, leading to increased social atrocities and further migration due to
uneconomic yields after fettered land pieces. Has this policy delivered social justice at the cost of
economic justice, this dilemma still haunts the socio-legal thinkers.
Economic justice and social justice are inextricably linked since the economic system is usually a
feature of the social system. Individual economic rights and possibilities are always a part of the
larger social structure. How to balance these interests and ensure ‘justice’ in true sense is also
one of the challenges question for the judges.18 The ‘idea’ of justice says that no individual,
group, or class should be able to exploit others or be exploited and various global theories that
will be examined in this paper, can help the judiciary in ensuring that.19
To ensure justice, Salmond believes that “the legal process should be simple, quick, fair,
affordable, and efficient. There should be effective apparatus in place to deter illegal activities.
The goal of law is to establish what is legal, to guarantee legal security, and to prevent unjust
behavior”, and to develop a policy ensuring the same can be herculean task, in that case these
same theories can be of some help as well as justification of the policy.20

IV. THEORIES OF JUSTICE THAT CAN ACT AS GUIDING LIGHT

As Cardozo, correctly observed in his book ‘The Nature of Judicial Process’21, “a judge's
decision might be impacted by both conscious and subconscious considerations.” 22 During this
time, he may also allude to many ideas of justice proposed by western thinkers influence the east.
In their rulings, the judiciary, which is supposed to be the government's autonomous institution,

16
Supra note 2.
17
Ritika Gupta, “Justice and its theories an overview”, Legal Services India. Available at
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2147-justice-and-its-theories-an-overview.html
18
Ibid.
19
Thom Brooks (ed.), Oxford Handbook on Global Justice 277-284 (Oxford Handbooks, London, 3rd edn., April
2020)., https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198714354.001.0001
20
Ibid.
21
Stone, Harlan F (ed.), Cardozo and Justice 82-85 (Columbia Law Review, 1922).
22
Ibid.

6
has made excellent attempts to represent various ideas of justice as expounded by various jurists.
“Bentham's utilitarian theory of justice, Hebert Spencer's and Immanuel Kant's theories of
individual liberty, Dworkin's Rights Thesis, Rawl's Theory of Justice, Amartya Sen's Idea of
Justice, as well as Socialist, Gandhian, and natural principles of justice”, all these theories have
bearing while delivering justice, even in India.

Theory of Justice by Rawl’s

“Justice is the primary virtue of social institutions” says Rawls, who proposed the social contract
theory. In Indian judgments, Rawls' theory of justice 23, which emphasizes themes such as liberty,
social equality, and democracy, can be seen. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dwarairaja 24 the
primary suit on this subject was the one that led to the first amendment to the Constitution and
safeguarded individual liberty by upholding fundamental rights. In Indira Sawhney v. Union of
India25, a major decision at the time, upholding the practice of reserving jobs for the poor. Even
in case of Nagaraj v. Union of India26 the notions of “equality through protective discrimination
for guaranteeing justice” were adopted in a number of rulings. This idea is akin to Mahatma
Gandhi’s idea of Antyodaya.

The principle of “distributive justice, which can be traced back to Aristotle and was stressed by
John Rawl, is established in the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 142 and 144, as well as
Parts III and IV.” The ideas of distributive justice were underlined in a number of decisions
dealing with environmental challenges same can be imbibed by the individual judges in their
functioning.

Dworkin’s Rights Thesis

In “his work Rights Thesis27, Ronald Dworkin emphasizes the importance objectivity in decision
making. Dworkin believes legal arguments are evaluative arguments of political morality and so
his legal theory depends on the idea that there are one-right answers to most evaluative
23
Hrubec, Marek, XX The Law of Peoples and Global Justice: Beyond the Liberal Nationalism of John Rawls 135-
150 (Human Affairs, Slovakia, 2nd edn. , 2010).
24
AIR 1951 SC 226.
25
AIR 1993 SC 477.
26
(2006) 8 SCC 212.
27
Gyr. Helen, XII Transitional Justice Process and the Justice Theory of Roland Dworkin 35 (Crossref, London,
2020).

7
questions. That objective truth -or fallibility- is embedded in morally evaluative discourse is
obvious from its logic. For we can't deny that there is no moral truth merely because there is
nothing 'external' or 'demonstrable' that determines that truth; as per this theory the judge must
have faith in himself and if his integrity, conscience allows any course to follow, that is aligned
with objectivity. Then he or she must stick to that thinking it ‘one-right answer’ and be not
swayed by other considerations.

Libertarianism And Justice

Individual liberty and freedom are highly valued in libertarianism, which is linked to “the
classical liberal traditions of John Locke, David Hume, and Kant, among others. In the NALSA
decision, the court cited Kant's 225-year-old principle of free will and Bentham's hedonist
utilitarianism, stating that there is no duality between individual liberties and the public welfare
in this issue, and so affirmed the rights of third-gender people.” It was upheld in Navtej Singh
Johar v. Union of India28, which overturned the harsh Indian Penal Code section 377.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India29, “the Supreme Court of India struck down the instant triple
talaq in the name of equality”, and in Joseph Shine v. Union of India30, “the Supreme Court of
India held” that “adultery would no longer be a criminal offence under Indian law, overturning
the 158-year-old law of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice through Utilitarian theory

Jeremy Bentham proposed the utilitarian idea, according to which “a law should be adopted with
the primary goal of ensuring maximum justice to the greatest number of people.” As a result, the
hedonistic calculus is used to determine public utility.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation31, Chandrachud, J. “applied this approach and
defined the principle in a simple statement:” “Human compassion must soften the rough edges of
justice in all situations”.

28
AIR 2018 SC 4321.
29
(2017) 9 SCC 1.
30
AIR 2018 SC 4898.
31
1985 SCC (3) 545.

8
Although “the eviction order is legal under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, the court
found that the right to life was expanded to include the right to livelihood as part of an
individual's liberty. As a result, the court's attention was drawn to the concept of a welfare state.”

Amartya Sen's Idea of Justice

Amartya Sen in his book ‘The idea of Justice’ proposed the ‘Social Choice Theory’32, which
holds that “laws should be developed with an understanding of societal requirements and based
on the demand for justice.” His work is based on the critical examining and revision of Rawl’s
Theory of Justice. Sen believes that “the theory of justice must be more concerned with the
elimination of removable injustices rather than defining a perfectly just society.”33 According to
him, “when dealing with a complex topic like justice and its practical application, one should
return to ancient Hindu thought, which explores the concepts of ‘Niti’ and ‘Nyaya.’ Niti in
Sanskrit legal thinking deals with just rules and institutions while Nyaya is about their
realization. Niti is an abstract exercise that, if implemented completely, would result in
maximum public welfare and justice. Nyaya, on the other hand, relates to the enforcement of
laws and regulations.” He emphasized Niti over Nyaya. In his book Amartya Sen has tried to
ascertain injustice and focused on development of human freedom and capabilities as tools and
did not just rely on the institutions.
Apart from privacy, the recent landmark judgement of Puttuswamy v. Union of India34 included a
wide range of issues. “Political liberties” and “democratic rights” are constituent components of
progress, according to Amartya Sen's writings in Idea of Justice. Chandrachud. J. overruled his
father's decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla35, upholding Khanna J.'s disagreement and
hence the Constitution's acknowledgment of the right to life and personal liberty under article 21
was acknowledged, thus increasing the capabilities of individuals to develop themselves freely.

In B.K. Pavitre v. Union of India36, Amartya Sen's Merit and Justice was cited as a source for
understanding merit as a tool for creating social order and reducing economic disparity. As a
result, the Court determined that offering reservations to SCs and STs does not contradict the

32
Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. (Belknap Press, 2011)
33
Ibid.
34
(2017) 10 SCC 1.
35
(1976) 2 SCC 521.
36
(2019) 16 SCC 129.

9
meritocracy concept.”The court concluded that merit should not be limited to rigid criteria such
as exam grades, but should instead strive for social equality. 37

Interplay of Justice & Passion

“The law is reason free from passion…Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when
separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all beasts”, said Aristotle.
In the most basic sense, justice is an ideal that represents "what is just and right." It entails being
"just, impartial, fair, and correct." Justice is essentially seen as “acceptance and enforcement of
laws enacted by the legislators.” According to Salmond, “laws are the bodies of principles that
tribunals recognize and apply while administering justice.” Even Roscoe Pound defines ‘laws’ to
mean “principles that public tribunals recognize and enforce.”
Justice is about formal rationality, therefore judging is simply offering reasons, whereas
emotions are irrational feelings. For some, passion may be seen as something which obscures
judgment and instigates prejudice and partiality38. The latin maxim “nemo judex in re sua” which
means “no man shall be a Judge in his own case” is basically used to avoid any kind partial or
bias decision in a case. Any judgment which is motivated by any element human feeling like
love, sympathy, vengeance, hatred etc. can’t be said to have truly provided justice. Thus, the
judges of the courts also require to act as per the evidences and not as per their own emotions or
the public opinion.
Many instances are seen where the public in the name of ‘justice’ takes the law in their hand 39,
one such example is mob lynching in name of race, origin, color across globe that further
instigate others in different corners of the world to follow same pursuit. Justice should take
precedence above vengeance, and it should reflect a calm and balanced response to wrongdoing,
rather than any impulsive act. A spiteful emotion enacts mob justice, which is improper since it
violates the ideals of fairness, impersonality, and due process.40

37
Abhinav Chandrachud, Supreme Whispers: Conversations with Judges of the Supreme Court of India 1980-89
(Penguin Random House India Private Limited, 2018).
38
Benvenisti, Eyal, 'Ensuring Access to Information: International Law’s Contribution to Global Justice', in Heike
Krieger, Georg Nolte, and Andreas Zimmermann (eds), The International Rule of Law: Rise or
Decline? (Oxford, 2019; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Sept.
2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843603.003.0022, accessed 9 Aug. 2023.
39
Ibid.
40
Peter Ronald DeSouza, “A passion for justice- What role do emotions play in as sytem of justice?”, The Indian
Express (Aug, 2021), available at https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-passion-for-justice/

10
Justice is linked to human beings and therefore, it cannot be delivered in complete isolation with
passion. What is to be eliminated is vindictive passion. Recently, there have been many cases
where the judges have considered the moral aspect and public opinion while deciding the case
like Mukesh 7 Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) 41 {Nirbhaya’s case}, Indian Young Lawyers
Association v. The State of Kerala42 {Sabrimala’s case}.
What needs to be addressed is “the hidden effect of fear, hate, love, and compassion in the
mutability of law and its transformational capacity, especially when faced with shifting social
mores.” In order to illustrate the idea of law-making as both intellectual and emotional, and
importantly as an essential activity of the empathic imagination, the textual nature of law and the
impact of literary forms on legal actors must be critically investigated. It is proposed that critical
scholarship on law, passions, and emotions across the world not only advances our
understanding of the inner workings of law, but also serves as a foundation for moral reasoning
and can establish the conditions for a more dynamic, flexible, ethical, and successful legal
system, thus helping the judiciary to deliver in more effective manner.

Kelsen’s theory of harmonious construction can come to rescue, that is one the most cherished
theories of all, most readily accepted by courts and various jurisdictions and is in line with the
Kelsen’s theory of justice43. As per this theory, a provision of the statute should not be
interpreted or construed in isolation but as a whole, so as to remove any inconsistency or
repugnancy. The courts must avoid a clash on contradicting provisions and they must construe
the opposing provisions so as to harmonize them. "No law or ordinance is mightier than
understanding", said Plato. Thus the court must have broad perspective while delivering justice,
taking cue from the global practices and not just restricting itself to the literal interpretation of
provisions that as per the statue construe justice. Same was reflected from the Independent
Thought v. Union of India44 case, wherein the court took clue form CEDAW convention 45, to
41
(2017) 6 SCC 1
42
2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690
43
Miriam T. Rooney, “Law without Justice--The Kelsen and Hall Theories Compared”, 23 Notre Dame L. Rev. 140
(1948). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol23/iss2/2, as per Kelsen, “Justice need not be the same at
all times and at all places any more than any other thing which appertains to social structure or values and this
includes positive law. Justice pervades the law and more is to be gained by its cognition than its denial.” same is to
be reflected by the decision making of the trained minds or persons so appointed to do so.
44
(2017) 10 SCC 800
45
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979,
Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-
discrimination-against-women

11
which India is a party but has not ratified all the provisions of the convention. This case of
Independent Thought related to martial rape, which although is not punishable in India neither
covered under any legislation, despite that, upholding the sanctity of autonomy of woman over
her body and to further the ends of gender justice. The court construed the convention in line
with global practices and the essence of convention, thus ruling against the existing legal
position in the country for meeting the true ends of justice.

V. CONCLUSION

The dilemma of ‘Unjust & Just’ nature of decision will always co-exist with justice delivery
system, when the issues are to be decided and fate of parties is at stake. Indian histroy is flooded
with examples of the same. This notion is reflected in Ashoka’s Dhamma, Upanishads, etc., the
way out was to show compassion towards all other innate beings and reflects inclusivity,
reflecting righteousness and fair decision making. The significance of righteousness, fairness,
and truth is emphasized in every other moral philosophy, and the concept of justice is at the
Centre of it. Thus the interplay between Indian ideas and that of thinkers across globe is not any
new phenomenon. To which Indian courts have also responded readily, as discussed in the paper,
the judiciary from the days of independence itself with the judges like J. Chandrachud, J.
Khanna, P.N. Bhagwati, has been prompt in adopting globally sound and prevalent principles or
concept that furthered the idea of justice. That was reflected in adopting and modifying statutory
liability principle by Bhagwati, as well as other judgements that followed.
Indian judiciary, that has often been criticized as submissive and conservative for holding on to
obsolete traditional principles, has time and again proved this pre-convieved notion wrong. This
was done by placing India with the contemporary world through its judgement on Gender
Justice, Transgender Justice (NALSA Judgement) or Environmental justice. The courts not only
broke the psychological-social silos of injustice, but also placed India among the nations, that are
cherished for imparting ‘modern contemporary justice’, that is not marred with parochialism,
gender-bias, ethnicity et. al. However, egregious inequities exist in a variety of forms and in
various facets of human existence and civilization, regardless of socioeconomic standing, justice
should be available to people from all walks of life based on various theories we discussed, be it
national or global, ‘Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere’ and one bad practice may

12
cause ripple effect in the global community. All the judicial institutions, including that of India,
must be cautious of this fact.
Further the justice must not be eroded by emotions or psychological barriers. By “engaging with
the underlying social context in which emotions are a motivating force, and even judiciary is not
spared from the same. Global events that are emotionally charged, involves transnational issues,
like human rights or climate justice, perpetual injustice may influence the judiciary Although the
emotionality of the law and the use of emotional tropes in legal discourse has become a well-
established focus in recent scholarship, the extent to which emotion and the passions have
informed rather than served as a mere adjunct to decision-making, decision-avoidance, and legal
reasoning remains a subject for critical examination. As seen by a number of instructive court
cases, emotions have played a critical part in the genesis of fundamental legal principles and
have resulted in a number of difficult judgements. Judges are able and one of best trained minds
that see objectivity; and are not usually swayed away by emotions in delivery of justice. The
globalization provides as a focal point and a panoramic view for the decision-maker to justify,
align, aspire, balance with the global view that opens new horizons and better justice delivery on
comparison with the steps taken by like minded people world over. Judges and the administrators
must not be myopic in their sight and must be have restrictive sense of justice influenced by East
or West, Traditional or Modern, etc and must be ready for all kinds of philosophies and ideas of
justice proposed by virtual disintegration of boundaries due to globalization. At the same time
remaining cognizant of the prevailing socioeconomic conditions of the society and the maturity
of our people of accept anything in name of justice.

13