Is it Ever Okay to Break the Law if You Believe the Law is Unjust?

Is it ever acceptable to break the law, especially when we believe a particular law is unjust? This question has been a source of fierce debate among philosophers, activists, and citizens globally. The answer, as we will explore, is often intertwined with the specific cause, situation, and circumstance. Historically, acts of civil disobedience have not only challenged unjust laws but have also propelled societies towards more equitable and just conditions.

Historical Antecedents: Gandhi's Dandi March and the Salt Act

Hind Simplest to Elite: One of the most poignant examples of legal resistance is the famous Dandi March led by Mahatma Gandhi in 1930. His primary aim was to challenge the Salt Act, a tax imposed by the British colonial government on Indians, which forced them to purchase salt from the British at a significantly higher price.

The Salt Act was a sign of control and oppression, denying Indians the basic right to collect or sell salt, a staple of the Indian diet. Despite the simplicity of salt as a protest, Gandhi ingeniously used this act to unite Indians irrespective of caste, community, and gender. Large numbers of people gathered to collectively defy the British law, symbolizing their defiance against unjust oppression. This unity was particularly significant as it brought together Hindu and Muslim communities, historically perceived as rivals, in a common cause.

Risk and Reward: Gandhi risked arrest when he went to collect salt, a 'negotiation' tool that led to a prison sentence of almost a year. However, this act of defiance inspired mass gatherings across India, with people paralysing British authorities. Gandhi's strategy worked, culminating in the Round Table Conference in London and accelerating the Indian independence movement.

Modern Society: Legal Challenges in the LGBTQIA Community

Intersection of Modern Law and Social Equity: In contemporary societies, we witnessing the legal and ethical challenges faced by marginalized communities. Take, for instance, the judgment by Hon. Anand Venkatesh, a judge of the Madras High Court, in his 2021 verdict on legal protection for the LGBTQIA community.

Resilience and Justice: The court acknowledged that while same-sex marriage is not explicitly approved by Indian law, discrimination against the LGBTQIA community is unjust. Hence, the judge directed the government to:

Issue an official list of NGOs addressing the needs of the LGBTQIA community. Make suitable changes in existing short-stay homes and shelters to accommodate LGBTQIA individuals. Tackle any prejudices against the LGBTQIA community. Ban any medical attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity.

With this decision, the court underscored the importance of protecting LGBTQIA rights and highlighted the moral responsibility of the state to prevent injustice.

Conclusion: Justifiable Actions for the Greater Good

While breaking the law is a serious matter, history and modern cases show that it can be justified under specific circumstances, especially when it serves a greater good. Gandhi's Dandi March and the court ruling by Hon. Anand Venkatesh offer compelling examples of how non-violent resistance can lead to significant social and legal change. When individuals and communities act in a way that upholds justice and seeks to protect the rights of others, their actions can be considered morally acceptable.

It is crucial to ensure that any form of protest or breaking the law is done in a non-violent and ethical manner, without harming others. Resisting injustice and striving for a more equitable society is a noble cause, and individuals and communities have a moral obligation to pursue it through legal means when possible.

Keywords: civil disobedience, unjust law, greater good