Author: Shaan Shaikh, Kirit P Mehta School of Law Navi Mumbai (NMIMS)
To the Point
Powerful people in government, politics, or big businesses often tend to make decisions that deeply affect millions of lives, yet the consequences are rarely felt by those in charge. Wars are waged, communities are torn apart by riots, and environments are destroyed, all in the name of progress, security, or national interest. But behind these grand narratives, it’s ordinary people women, children, and marginalized groups who suffer the most, losing their homes, their loved ones, and their futures. Despite clear violations of justice and human rights, those responsible often walk free, protected by legal loopholes, political influence, or institutional silence.
In India, the complex history with Pakistan stands as a stark reminder of how political interests can overshadow humanitarian needs, turning justice from a living principle into a distant hope.
Abstract
This article takes a hard look at how those in power – governments, political leaders, and big corporations often make decisions that lead to immense human suffering. From wars and riots to displacements and environmental crises, the cost is usually paid by innocent civilians. Yet, time and again, the legal system falls short when it comes to holding these powerful actors accountable. Through real-world examples and legal analysis, the article explores why wars are fought, who suffers the most, and how justice is too often delayed or denied.
It also looks closely at the long-standing tensions between India and Pakistan, showing how legal principles are frequently overshadowed by political agendas. In the end, the article raises a crucial question: Can the law truly serve justice if it stays silent in the face of power? It calls for urgent legal reform, stronger institutions, and the courage to speak truth to power.
Use of Legal Jargon
The exercise of state power in decisions leading to mass suffering such as wars, communal riots, forced displacements, and environmental degradation exposes deep fissures in legal accountability frameworks. Foundational doctrines like state sovereignty and the act of state doctrine often shield political and corporate elites from scrutiny, insulating actions that result in grave humanitarian consequences. The principle of command responsibility, central to international criminal law, remains underutilized in domestic systems, allowing high-ranking officials to evade liability for atrocities committed under their watch.
Additionally, the application of selective prosecution where legal mechanisms are used against weaker offenders while ignoring powerful actors undermines the principle of equality before law. In situations of war or civil unrest, actions that qualify as crimes against humanity or war crimes are often reframed as matters of national interest or security, rendering legal norms ineffective. The legal silence is further amplified by legal immunity provisions for state actors, and the inadequacy of public interest litigation (PIL) in challenging entrenched political power.
This doctrinal paralysis reflects the urgent need to re-examine the jurisprudence surrounding accountability, state liability, and international humanitarian law, particularly in democracies where rule of law is expected to check arbitrary power. Without this adjustment, the law could end up hiding wrongdoing instead of making sure justice is done.
The Proof
The global political and legal landscape offers numerous examples where decisions by powerful actors have led to large-scale human suffering, yet accountability remains elusive:
Ongoing Global Conflicts:
1. The war in Gaza (2023–present) has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and mass displacement, with credible allegations of war crimes. However, international legal institutions face limitations in prosecuting dominant state actors due to geopolitical interests and veto powers within the UN Security Council.
2. The Russia-Ukraine War has led to widespread destruction and civilian casualties. Despite international condemnation, powerful state actors continue to operate with relative legal impunity, exposing the selective enforcement of international humanitarian law.
3. India-Pakistan Conflicts:
Since 1947, the India-Pakistan wars (1947–48, 1965, 1971, and Kargil in 1999) have not only caused military losses but have also displaced countless civilians in Kashmir and border areas. These conflicts, driven by nationalist agendas, have overshadowed the voices of the affected populations. Legal frameworks remain largely silent on the long-term impact on civilians and prisoners of war.
4. Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984):
A disastrous gas leak at Union Carbide’s factory caused the immediate deaths of more than 3,000 people and left thousands of others suffering from serious health problems for years afterward. The $470 million settlement was widely criticized as grossly inadequate, and key executives, including Warren Anderson, never faced trial in India. Corporate negligence, compounded by state inaction, highlighted the failure of both domestic and international legal remedies.
5. Environmental Injustice – Vedanta & POSCO (India):
In Odisha and other tribal regions, large-scale industrial projects led by powerful corporations like Vedanta have displaced indigenous populations, with minimal legal safeguards or rehabilitation. Despite Supreme Court interventions, the rights of tribal communities have been subordinated to “economic development.”
These instances expose how legal systems are either structurally incapable or politically unwilling to hold powerful actors accountable, reinforcing a global pattern of legal silence in the face of influential injustice.
Case Laws
1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
This case is one of the darkest chapters in Indian legal history. During the Emergency (1975–77), the government suspended fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court shockingly agreed that even the right to life could be denied. Citizens who were jailed without reason had no right to challenge it. It shows how the judiciary, instead of protecting people, sometimes gives in to state pressure silencing the law when it is needed most.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
In a strong moment for Indian democracy, the Court stepped in to stop the misuse of Article 356, which was being used to dismiss elected governments. It also emphasized that secularism remains a fundamental principle embedded in our Constitution. This case shows that the judiciary can stand firm against political misuse of power, especially when communal tensions are at stake.
3. Kashmir PIL Cases
In several petitions about the situation in Jammu & Kashmir including excessive use of force, detentions, and internet shutdowns the judiciary has often stepped back, citing “national security.” While some people raised strong legal and human rights concerns, the courts have generally sided with the state. This shows how the legal system often stays silent in the face of state power, even when rights are clearly at risk.
4. Nicaragua v. United States (1986, International Court of Justice)
The International Court of Justice found the U.S. guilty of illegally supporting rebel forces in Nicaragua. But the U.S. simply ignored the ruling. This case reminds us that even international courts have little power when global superpowers choose not to listen revealing the limits of global legal accountability.
5. Tahseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
With the rise of mob lynching’s across India, this case drew the Supreme Court’s attention to the problem. The Court strongly criticized the government’s failure to act and said mob violence cannot be allowed in a civilized society. But despite the strong words, the real-world follow-through has been weak. This reflects how even well-meaning judgments can fall flat without political will.
Conclusion
The repeated failure of legal systems both domestic and international to hold powerful actors accountable for actions that inflict mass suffering reflects a crisis of justice. Whether through war, environmental degradation, communal violence, or forced displacement, the cost of unchecked power is disproportionately borne by the powerless. Legal doctrines intended to protect fundamental rights are often distorted, deferred, or ignored in the name of sovereignty, national security, or economic progress.
The silence of law in the face of such injustice is not merely a procedural flaw it is a structural betrayal of the very principles of democracy and rule of law. From India’s complex relationship with Pakistan to global conflicts and corporate-driven displacements, the judiciary, legislature, and international institutions must urgently reassert their role as watchdogs of accountability.
To restore public trust, legal systems must evolve not only to challenge impunity but to actively dismantle the institutional protections that allow it. Without this transformation, law risks being reduced to a tool of the powerful, rather than a shield for the vulnerable.
FAQS
Q1: Why does the law often fail to hold powerful actors accountable?
A: Legal systems are influenced by political, economic, and institutional pressures. Doctrines like state sovereignty, legal immunity, and national security are often used to shield state actors and corporations from scrutiny. Moreover, enforcement agencies may lack the autonomy or will to act impartially against influential individuals.
Q2: What legal mechanisms exist to prevent or punish such injustices?
A: International laws such as the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute (ICC), and doctrines like command responsibility provide frameworks to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and environmental destruction. In India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL), constitutional remedies, and human rights commissions offer domestic avenues but implementation is inconsistent.
Q3: Why are wars still fought in the modern legal era?
A: Wars today are often driven by political agendas, economic interests (e.g., oil, arms trade), religious or ethnic divisions, and historical grievances. Despite international prohibitions, powerful states often act unilaterally, knowing enforcement is weak and consequences rare.
Q4: Who suffers the most from such power-driven decisions?
A: Ordinary people, particularly vulnerable groups such as women, children, minorities, and those living in poverty, are the ones who face the greatest hardships. They face displacement, loss of life, economic deprivation, and psychological trauma, while perpetrators often evade consequences.
Q5: How does the India-Pakistan conflict fit into this narrative?
A: The India-Pakistan conflict is a clear example where political decisions have led to recurring wars, displacements (especially in Kashmir), and human rights violations. Despite international and domestic legal standards, justice for affected civilians has been limited due to national security justifications and political deadlock.
Q6: Can international courts or the UN intervene effectively?
A: In theory, yes. But in practice, geopolitical interests often obstruct accountability. For instance, powerful nations can veto UN actions or ignore International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings without facing real sanctions.
Q7: What can be done to address this legal silence?
A: Strengthening judicial independence, enhancing transparency, reforming international enforcement mechanisms, and promoting civic activism and media scrutiny are essential. Legal reform must prioritize access to justice and dismantle doctrines that shield impunity.
