Exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgements

Nature

The exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgments refers to the lack of public participation or influence in establishing the standards and principles that guide court decisions. This problem arises when legal frameworks and judicial reasoning are shaped predominantly by elites, legal professionals, or political actors, rather than reflecting the values and perspectives of the broader population. Such exclusion can undermine the legitimacy, fairness, and social acceptance of judicial outcomes, potentially leading to public distrust in the legal system and a disconnect between law and societal needs or expectations.

Background

The exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgements emerged as a recognized concern during the 20th century, as legal scholars and civil society groups observed persistent gaps between judicial reasoning and public values. Landmark debates in post-colonial and transitional societies highlighted how judicial standards often reflected elite or external influences, prompting global discourse on democratizing legal processes. This issue gained further prominence with the rise of participatory governance movements in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Incidence

The civil rights movement, born out of demonstrations initiated by Martin Luther King, is a classic example of a response to the closing off of the judicial process from the people, depriving them of the socially established channels for dealing with grievances and disputes.

Claim

When the judicial system is experienced as closed, people have no recourse but to seek solutions through unconventional channels. Present-day covenants and codes do not reflect what the individual experiences as the social reality in which he or she participates. The processes of judicial review and creation of legislation have so far neither enabled people to articulate their understanding of the malfunctioning of the system nor to participate in the re-creation of legal principles. The social order is unable to transform the present situation into viable alternatives for the future.