In a diverse country like India, social systems do not become themselves. This requires an institution that can make a balance between tradition and progress, personal rights and collective interests, and constitutional values and mass emotions. That institution is judiciary. But here’s an important question: is the judiciary merely an institution that sets out controversies, or does it actively shape the society in which we live?

The answer has shifted over time—and it continues to shift today. From interpreting the Constitution to directing policy changes, Indian courts have moved far beyond their traditional role. This article tells how the judiciary acts as a medium of maintaining social arrangement. It is mentioned in important court decisions and recent judicial events, which are also defining this role in 2026.

What Does Social Ordering Mean in the Indian Context?

Social systems call the process through which a society organizes its relationships, resolves disputes, and decide rights and responsibilities. In most democracy, it’s mainly a legislative task. Parliament makes laws; the executive enacts them; and the judiciary explains them.

India, however, tells a different story. The judiciary here has played a far more active role in social ordering for several reasons:

• Transformative vision of the Constitution: the manufacturers did not just create a legal document; they prepared the mocure of the social revolution. Article 14, 15, 17 and 21 were designed to eliminate the hierarchy of caste, gender and religion.
• Legislative Inertia: Parliament often moves slowly on contentious social issues. Courts have stepped into that vacuum.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Since the late 1970s, any citizen can approach the Supreme Court or High Courts on behalf of those who cannot access justice themselves.

The result is a judiciary that doesn’t just apply the law—it actively orders social relationships.

The Constitutional Foundation: Why Courts Have This Power

Before looking at specific cases, it’s important to understand where the judiciary gets its authority to shape society.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The Supreme Court’s power to review and cancel Constitutional amendments was firmly established in the case, Keshwanand Bharti vs Kerala State (1973). The Court said that Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution—which includes principles such as secularism, democracy and judicial review.

This doctrine remains the bedrock of judicial oversight. As one recent analysis notes, the tide of transformative constitutionalism turned with this landmark decision.

Constitutional Morality

This is the theory that provides the courts philosophical basis to challenge those prevalent, but discriminatory practices. According to the concept of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, “constitutional ethics” is required to follow the values of freedom, equality, justice and frustration—even if these values are opposite to the established norms of society.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the Sabarimala reference, where this very doctrine is under scrutiny. Critics question whether constitutional morality gives judges excessive discretion. Defenders argue it’s the only safeguard against majoritarian oppression.

Landmark Case Laws That Shaped Social Ordering

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalising Homosexuality

The Supreme Court explained section 377 of the IPC, expelled gay relations with mutual consent from the category of crime. The court cited ‘constitutional ethics’, saying that depending on the dislikes of people, conduct made with private and mutual consent cannot be crimes.

This wasn’t just about sexuality. It was about the limits of majoritarian morality. The judgment established that the Constitution protects minorities—even “minuscule minorities”—from the tyranny of the majority.

2. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – The Sabarimala Case

The court opened the Sabarimala temple to women aged menstrual and eliminated the practice of keeping them out centuries-old, old. The decision said that discrimination can not be justified on the basis of organic factors in cases of religious practices. This case is at the centre of constitutional debate running between religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26) and equality (Article 14).

3. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Striking Down Adultery

The court canceled section 497 of the IPC under which adultery was considered a crime. In the decision it was assumed that a woman is not her husband’s property, and that the state should have no role in controlling private marital relations.

4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

When there was no law to deal with sexual assault at the workplace, the Supreme Court intervened and decided binding guidelines. “After this, the same guidelines became the “”Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2013″”.” This is a great example of how the judiciary can direct social behaviour to regulate when not legislative action.

Recent Judicial Developments (2024–2026): The Role Is Expanding

The judiciary’s role in social ordering hasn’t slowed down. If anything, recent judgments show courts becoming more specific about what equality and dignity require.

Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (October 2024) – Caste Discrimination in Prisons

The Supreme Court said that caste-based discrimination within the jail system—which includes sharing work based on caste and separating “dinotified tribs” (dinotified tribes) – violating Article 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution.

What makes this judgment significant?

• The Court recognised a new constitutional right: the “right to overcome caste prejudices” as part of the right to life under Article 21.
• It directly ordered changes to prison manuals across states, demonstrating how judicial intervention can restructure institutional practices.
• This wasn’t about individual disputes. It was about the systemic ordering of social relationships within state institutions.

Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (October 2025) – Transgender Rights

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment holding both state and private actors accountable for discrimination against transgender persons. The petitioner, a transwoman teacher, had been dismissed from private schools after her gender identity became known.

The Court’s directions are far-reaching:

• It established that “reasonable accommodation” is a core constitutional duty under Article 14.
• It set up an eight-member committee headed by former Delhi High Court judge Asha Menon to formulate a national equal opportunity policy.
• It directed the Union government to frame its own policy within three months.
• It criticized the “grossly apathetic attitude” of state institutions toward implementing the Transgender Persons Act, 2019.

The Court didn’t just say discrimination is wrong. It ordered the creation of an enforcement architecture. As one analysis put it, the Court made clear that transgender rights require “not just their declaration, but an architecture for their enforcement”.

Padam Mehta v. State of Rajasthan (May 2026) – Language Rights

The Supreme Court directed Rajasthan to include Rajasthani language as a subject in all government and private schools. The court said that the freedom of expression received under Article 19(1)(a also includes the right to get education in the language of his choice—and the state has the responsibility to create such situations in which this right can actually be used.

Why this matters: The Court moved from protecting a negative right (freedom from interference) to mandating a positive obligation (the State must provide the infrastructure). That’s a significant expansion of judicial power in social ordering.

Ram Charan v. Sukhram (July 2025) – Tribal Customary Law

Dealing with tribal women’s inheritance rights, the Court held that when tribal laws are silent on an issue, courts cannot assume a discriminatory custom. Instead, the doctrine of “justice, equity, and good conscience” must apply.

This judgment corrects a long-standing problem. Earlier, in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, the Court had wrongly presumed a pro-bigamy custom without proof. Ram Charan now requires courts to fill legal vacuums with constitutional morality, not regressive assumptions.

Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (July 2025) – Mental Health as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court declared mental health an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. The judgment emphasised that mental well-being is essential for dignity, autonomy, and human flourishing.

Real-world impact: The judgment is already being tested in cases like that of an IIT Kharagpur student seeking transfer to access affordable mental health care—showing how judicial declarations translate into institutional obligations.

Bail Conditions and Caste Bias (2026) – Correcting Judicial Excess

In a striking move, the Supreme Court came down heavily on courts in Odisha for imposing bail conditions that required Dalit and Adivasi accused persons to clean police stations. The Court called the conditions “obnoxious,” “degrading,” and “unknown to law,” and directed that such conditions never be imposed again.

The Court reminded the judiciary of its constitutional duty: “A judiciary is entrusted with the duty to safeguard these constitutional guarantees and is expected to jealously protect those who are most vulnerable”.

This case shows that social ordering isn’t just about the Supreme Court telling the legislature what to do. It also means the higher judiciary correcting its own ranks when they perpetuate caste hierarchies.

Kanaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (September 2026) – Personal Morality in Bail

The Supreme Court held that judges must refrain from imposing their personal moral views while deciding bail applications. The High Court had denied bail because releasing the accused could affect the “morals” of the victim’s family. The Supreme Court set aside that reasoning, reinforcing the principle that judicial decisions must be based on law, not private value judgments.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

Not everyone agrees that courts should be this active in social ordering. The tension is real.

Arguments in favour of judicial activism:

• Courts protect vulnerable groups when elected representatives won’t.
• Constitutional rights are meaningless without enforcement.
• PIL has empowered citizens who otherwise have no voice.

Arguments against:

• Judges do not come by choosing and they are not accountable to the people.
• The courts don’t have the institutional ability to create and implement social policy.
• High intervention can weaken democratic validity.

The Supreme Court itself has also accepted this tension. In the Balram Singh case, the court’s stance over the manual scavenging of sloppy doping from the principle that was established in the ‘bonded liberation front’ case. The court put on the responsibility petitioners to present the evidence, which caused concerns over the terms of evidence in cases related to social rights. This balance is very fragile. The courts should intervene to protect the rights, but at the same time they should also respect the scope of democratic decision-process.

What This Means for Citizens and Lawyers

• PIL is a powerful tool. If you see a systemic injustice—whether in prisons, schools, or workplaces—the courts can be approached directly. Sukanya Shantha began as a journalist’s op-ed and became a constitutional ruling.

• Judicial orders create enforceable obligations. Jane Kaushik didn’t just declare rights; it ordered the creation of a committee and a national policy.
• Know the difference between negative and positive rights. Padam Mehta shows that courts are increasingly willing to mandate state action, not just restraint.
• Caste and gender remain central to judicial social ordering. Recent judgments consistently address structural discrimination, not just individual acts.

Final Word

In the global landscape of constitutional law the Indian judiciary holds a special place. It doesn’t only explain the rules, but it also actively shape social relationships that define our daily lives. From ‘The Original Framework Principles’ (Basic Structure Doctorin) to transgender rights, and from prison improvement to linguistic education—the court has repeatedly moved forward in areas where the legislature goes.

There are also controversies about this role. Constitutional ethics vs public ethics, and judicial activism vs democratic validity—such debates will continue further. But one thing is clear: in India, social ordering is not a task left to Parliament alone. The judiciary is a co-author of the social contract, and the case laws of 2024–2026 prove that its pen is far from idle.