#Title
LAW AND SOCIETY
On quota reform movement and judicial decision-making
SHARMISTA BANIK
Whether pressure of any social movement can influence judicial decision-making is a complex question and touches on fundamental aspects of constitutional law, judicial independence, and separation of power. The question becomes all the more complicated when the decision-making lies with the highest judicial authority of the state (i.e., the Supreme Court).
While the Constitution does not provide a direct mechanism for public protests to overturn court verdicts, it does recognise fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. These rights allow citizens to voice their opinions and potentially influence the broader legal, judicial, and political landscape.
In the landmark case of Brown v Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. While the decision was based on constitutional interpretation, it was influenced by the broader civil rights movement and changing social attitudes towards racial equality. Even conservative courts can be influenced by advocacy and public conscience. During Nixon’s Presidency, despite conservative appointments, the court made several progressive decisions. This included ruling against sex discrimination and deciding Roe v Wade (1973), which legalised abortion. These decisions were influenced by growing public support for gender equality and reproductive rights.
The South African Constitutional Court’s decision in Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002) demonstrates how a combination of litigation and public mobilisation can influence judicial outcomes. The court’s ruling, while based on constitutional interpretation, was undoubtedly informed by the broader social movement advocating for HIV/AIDS treatment access. In India, the Indian Supreme Court’s decision in the Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan (1997), was influenced by women’s rights movements and led to guidelines on sexual harassment in the workplace. This judgment was an outcome of both street protests outraged by the decision of the previous Bhanwari Devi case and sustained public advocacy.
The concept of ‘popular constitutionalism’ argues that the people, and not just the courts, play a role in constitutional interpretation. While this does not suggest that court decisions can be overturned by public opinion, it acknowledges that sustained public engagement with constitutional issues can shape the context in which future cases are decided.
The current debate in Bangladesh over the reformation of quota system brings these issues into sharp focus. The staying of the 2018 government circular and lack of adequate initiatives by government to reform the quota system has sparked widespread protests from general students. It has brought into focus the tension among judicial independence and public sentiment and freedom of expression.
While public protests do not have the constitutional authority to directly overturn judicial decisions, they reflect a shift in public opinion that the court cannot entirely ignore. The Supreme Court, while not directly accountable to public opinion, does not operate in a vacuum but within a broader societal context. The effectiveness of the judiciary in a democratic system is partially derived from public trust and acceptance of its decisions. While Supreme Court judgments are designed to be final and independent of public pressure, among others, the ongoing quota debate in Bangladesh illustrates the complex interplay between judicial decisions, constitutional interpretation, and evolving societal values, highlighting the need for a delicate balance to be struck between upholding legal principles and responding to legitimate public concerns within a dynamic democracy.
The writer is student of law, University of Dhaka.
While public protests do not have the constitutional authority to directly overturn judicial decisions, they reflect a shift in public opinion that the court cannot entirely ignore. The Supreme Court, while not directly accountable to public opinion, does not operate in a vacuum but within a broader societal context.