Law, Power, and Conscience: Rethinking the Foundations of Ju

Society is not merely a collection of individuals. Once formed, it evolves into a distinct entity with its own values, direction, and collective identity. To sustain this collective life, societies establish laws—frameworks designed to ensure equal opportunity, define rights, and maintain social order. Yet despite centuries of legal evolution, an uncomfortable question persists: who truly controls the law, and whose interests does it ultimately serve?

In theory, law exists to regulate behavior and prevent wrongdoing. In practice, however, history demonstrates that law has rarely been entirely neutral. Karl Marx argued that those who control economic power often shape legal systems to preserve their interests. In monarchies, the king’s word was law, irrespective of justice or public welfare. Even religious legal codes such as Sharia or Manusmriti reflected prevailing power structures of their respective eras. Law, therefore, has frequently mirrored authority rather than challenged it.

The Renaissance marked a critical shift—from authority-centered governance to human-centered thinking. Modern democracies emerged on the premise that laws should reflect the will and dignity of the people. Sociologist Yogendra Singh described law as both restrictive and reformative: it restrains harmful actions while also initiating social change. Yet the question remains whether contemporary legal systems effectively fulfill this dual function.

In countries with extensive legal frameworks, including India, laws exist for nearly every conceivable offense. Nevertheless, crime persists. Injustice continues. This reveals a crucial limitation: law operates externally, while morality operates internally. Mahatma Gandhi emphasized that true moral conduct arises not from fear of punishment but from inner conscience and integrity. Laws may contain loopholes; conscience does not.

Power further complicates the pursuit of justice. Individuals with political connections or economic dominance often evade accountability. Institutions hesitate. Systems stall. Justice is delayed—and at times denied. When law bends before power, it forfeits its moral authority.

There are also moments when law itself fails society. For decades, homosexuality was criminalized in India and elsewhere—not because it was inherently immoral, but because legal systems resisted evolving with human dignity. Such instances remind us that law must adapt to social progress; otherwise, it risks becoming an instrument of oppression rather than protection.

The purpose of law is to establish social cohesion and order, enforced through institutions such as the police, judiciary, and administration. However, when these institutions become corrupt, inefficient, or politically biased, the promise of justice collapses. Even the most thoughtfully written laws are rendered meaningless without ethical implementation.

Law, therefore, is necessary—but not sufficient. It is not a panacea. A just society cannot be built solely through regulation and punishment. Its foundation must rest on conscience, cultivated from childhood and reinforced within families, schools, and communities. When citizens internalize moral responsibility, law transforms from a weapon of fear into a tool of collective progress.

A society governed only by law may endure. But a society guided by conscience will truly prosper.

Written by: Harsh Priya Ranjan

*Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Vygr’s views.

With inputs from agencies