"Rule of Law vs Rule of the Mob" — Justice Bagchi's Landmark Warning at the 5th H.R. Khanna Memorial Symposium
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesAt the 5th Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium, Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned that a legal victory inside the courtroom is meaningless if mob rule prevails outside it — a powerful reminder that constitutional democracy depends on citizen faith in the rule of law. Event: 5th Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium Theme: "Without Fear or Favour: Upholding Judicial Independence in a Digital and Globalised World" Presiding Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Judge, Supreme Court of India Date of Observation: August 1, 2026 Organisers: CAN Foundation, in collaboration with WBNUJS, Kolkata and DSNLU, Visakhapatnam Related Judicial Proceedings: State of Uttarakhand v. Abdul Malik, SLP(Crl) No. 12779/2026 (Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana — Heard on July 31, 2026) ABSTRACT On August 1, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while presiding over the post-lunch session of the 5th Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium, delivered a profoundly significant observation on the relationship between judicial declarations of rights and their actual enforcement in society. Reflecting on his personal experience as a lawyer who successfully defended author Taslima Nasrin's right to free expression before the Calcutta High Court, Justice Bagchi cautioned that even after winning a legal battle, a citizen may not truly enjoy freedom if the rule of law is supplanted by the rule of the mob. He observed that 37 judges sitting in Delhi cannot ensure justice for every Indian — that requires an empowered citizenry, an independent Bar, and robust public faith in constitutional values. The observation resonates deeply with the legacy of Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521, which stood as a lonely beacon for the rule of law during the Emergency. This analysis examines the doctrinal basis, constitutional significance, related case law, and broader implications of Justice Bagchi's remarks for the administration of justice in India. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Context of the Observation Background — The Taslima Nasrin Episode and the Genesis of the Remark The Constitutional Framework: Rule of Law as a Basic Structure Doctrine Judicial Observations in State of Uttarakhand v. Abdul Malik (2026) The Tension Between Courtroom Justice and Street-Level Reality Relevant Case Laws and Constitutional Provisions The Legacy of Justice H.R. Khanna and Judicial Courage Implications for the Administration of Justice and Public Confidence 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF THE OBSERVATION The 5th Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium, held virtually on August 1, 2026, was organised by the CAN Foundation in collaboration with the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata and Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU), Visakhapatnam. The overarching theme — "Without Fear or Favour: Upholding Judicial Independence in a Digital and Globalised World" — explored challenges to judicial independence in an era of social media trials, digital surveillance, and growing populist pressures on constitutional courts. The pre-lunch session featured Justice A.G. Masih as Chief Guest with keynote addresses by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh. The post-lunch session was presided over by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who engaged in a candid conversation with law students on the theme "From Classrooms to Courtrooms: Syllogisms, Stories & Lessons of Life from the Bench." It was during this interaction that Justice Bagchi made his now-celebrated observation. Responding to a question about how constitutional jurisprudence should evolve to balance the State's interest in curbing misinformation while preventing a chilling effect on free speech, Justice Bagchi reflected on his experience as a lawyer defending Taslima Nasrin's right to publish. He noted that while the court battle was won, what happened outside the courtroom told a different story — the rule of law was subverted by the rule of the mob. Taslima Nasrin was ultimately forced to leave Kolkata despite possessing a judicially validated right to expression. Justice Bagchi's concluding remark distilled the essence of his concern: "If the lamp of justice dies in the hearts of the people, no court can save it." This observation did not arise in isolation. Just one day earlier, on July 31, 2026, Justice Bagchi sat on the Bench with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana in State of Uttarakhand v. Abdul Malik (SLP(Crl) No. 12779/2026), where the Court refused to cancel bail granted by the Nainital High Court to the alleged mastermind of the 2024 Haldwani riots. During that hearing, Justice Bagchi made several pointed observations about liberty, mob violence, prosecutorial responsibility, and the limits of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Read together, the co