The ongoing legal proceedings involving activist Umar Khalid have sparked a profound debate about the foundations of India's justice system. A recent commentary by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde poses a critical question: are we witnessing a retreat from the established Rule of Law towards a more capricious 'Rule of Instinct'? This analysis, published on 10 January 2026, delves into the heart of this judicial and societal concern.
The Core of the Argument: Emotion Over Text
Sanjay Hegde's central argument is that the divergence in the application of law in cases like Khalid's is not rooted in legal texts. The wording of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty, remains unchanged. Similarly, the statutes under which such cases are framed have not been formally altered. What has undergone a significant transformation, according to Hegde, is the emotional register surrounding the case.
This shift in public and, potentially, judicial sentiment influences how laws are interpreted and applied. The legal process, meant to be an objective fortress, appears vulnerable to the tides of prevailing narratives and instinctive reactions, moving away from a dispassionate examination of facts and evidence.
Contextualizing the Umar Khalid Legal Battle
Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student and activist, has been embroiled in a protracted legal battle under stringent laws. His case has become a focal point for discussions on dissent, state power, and legal overreach in contemporary India. The prolonged detention and the nature of the charges have drawn scrutiny from various civil society groups and legal experts who see it as a test for constitutional freedoms.
Hegde's commentary suggests that the procedural journey of this case exemplifies how the atmosphere around a defendant can overshadow the substance of legal procedure. The instinct to view the accused through a particular political or social lens can, arguably, compromise the neutrality that is the bedrock of the Rule of Law.
Implications for Justice and Constitutional Governance
The potential consequences of this alleged shift are far-reaching. If the 'Rule of Instinct' gains ground, it sets a dangerous precedent where:
- Legal outcomes become unpredictable, tied more to public mood than legal merit.
- The fundamental right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of Article 21, is undermined.
- The justice system risks being perceived as an instrument of political or social narrative rather than an impartial arbiter.
Hegde's analysis serves as a crucial reminder that the health of a democracy is measured not just by the laws on its books but by their consistent and equitable application. The Umar Khalid case, in this view, is more than an individual's legal struggle; it is a litmus test for India's commitment to its own constitutional principles. The call is for a return to a jurisprudence anchored in text and reason, insulating the legal process from the fluctuating winds of instinct and emotion.
