When Procedure Replaces Dharma in Constitutional Justice

• What is justice if it wounds the ‘innocent’ while obeying the rulebook?
• Is a judgment truly constitutional if it is ‘procedurally flawless’ but ‘morally barren’?
• Can the law claim legitimacy when it ‘protects order’ but ‘abandons compassion’?
• And most importantly, does justice cease to be Dharma when Karuna is edited out?

These questions sit at the heart of India’s constitutional moment today.

Nyaya & Karuna: Two Pillars, Not Competing Virtues

In the Indian civilizational imagination, Nyaya and Karuna are not adversaries. They are complements.

• Nyaya represents reasoned judgment, logic, due process, consistency, and predictability. It is the architecture of justice — the how.
   
• Karuna represents compassion, empathy, lived reality, and moral sensitivity. It is the soul of justice — the why.

When Nyaya operates without Karuna, justice becomes mechanical. When Karuna operates without Nyaya, justice risks arbitrariness. Dharma exists only when both breathe together.

The Modern Constitutional Drift: Procedure as a Moral Alibi

Contemporary constitutional interpretation increasingly treats procedure as virtue and compliance as conscience. If a judgment is:

• backed by precedent,
• aligned with administrative feasibility,
• and defensible within statutory text, 

it is deemed ‘just’ — even if its consequences are ‘cruel, disruptive, or dehumanizing.’ This is where Nyaya mutates into legal minimalism, and Karuna is dismissed as sentimentality. But Dharma was never sentimental. It was always context-sensitive responsibility.

The Stray Dog Judgment: A Case Study in Karuna Deficit

In ordering the relocation of stray dogs into shelter homes, the Court may have followed:

• municipal logic,
• public safety rhetoric,
• and administrative convenience. 

But it failed the Dharmic test.

Why?

Because it treated living beings as problems to be moved, not lives to be understood.

Because it assumed ecosystems can be rearranged like furniture.

Because it privileged abstract order over concrete suffering.

This is Nyaya without Karuna — and therefore, incomplete justice.

Dharma Is Not ‘Blind Neutrality’

One of the great myths of modern jurisprudence is that neutrality equals fairness. Dharma rejects this. Dharma demands discernment, not detachment. It requires the decision-maker to ask:

• Who bears the cost of this order?
• Who suffers silently?
• Who has no voice in this courtroom?

In Dharmic jurisprudence, power carries asymmetrical responsibility. The more powerful the institution, the greater its duty to protect the voiceless.

Article 51A(g): Compassion is Not Optional

Article 51A(g) does not merely mandate environmental protection. It explicitly includes “compassion for all living creatures.”

This is not decorative language. It is not poetic excess. It is constitutional intent. To interpret this article expansively for corporations, but narrowly when inconvenient, is to fracture the Constitution’s moral coherence.

Nyaya as ‘Means,’ Not ‘End’

In the Dharmic framework:

• Law is a means to uphold harmony.
• Order is a tool, not the goal.
• Justice is evaluated not only by logic, but by outcome, impact, and conscience.

A judgment that increases suffering — even if procedurally sound — demands re-examination.

The Judiciary as a ‘Dharmic Actor,’ Not a ‘Detached Arbiter’

The Supreme Court is not outside society. It is not above ecology. It is not immune to consequence. Every judgment reshapes:

• human behavior,
• animal survival,
• environmental balance,
• and moral norms. 

To deny this is to deny reality.

Dharma begins where accountability is ‘internalized,’ not ‘outsourced.’

The Central Question We Must Ask

So, let us ask — not rhetorically, but seriously:

• Can constitutional justice afford to ignore Karuna in a civilization built on it?
• Can Nyaya alone carry the moral weight of a plural, living society?
• And if compassion is excluded from interpretation, what distinguishes justice from mere regulation?

Because when law loses Karuna, it may still command obedience — but it will no longer command respect.

Is a judgment still ‘just’ if it ‘obeys’ the Constitution but ‘betrays’ its spirit?

Is procedure enough when compassion is constitutionally mandated? And if Dharma is balance, not bias — who will restore that balance when Nyaya walks alone? These are not philosophical indulgences. They are the questions upon which the ‘legitimacy of justice’ itself rests.

Image (c) istock.com