The trolley problem, a classic ethical dilemma, involves a hypothetical scenario where a runaway trolley is headed toward five people. The decision-maker must choose whether to divert it to a track with one person, sacrificing one life to save five. This thought experiment contrasts utilitarianism (prioritizing outcomes) and deontology (adhering to moral duties). Philosophers like Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson used it to explore the doctrine of double effect—distinguishing between intended harm and foreseen but unintended consequences.
Relevance to Indian Judicial Decision-Making
Indian judges frequently encounter cases where legal principles clash with moral or societal imperatives, mirroring the trolley problem’s tension between competing values. Below are key examples illustrating this dynamic:
1. Prioritizing Family Stability Over Legal Mandates
In Kerala High Court (2024), a judge quashed criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act against a man who sexually assaulted a minor, citing the couple’s subsequent marriage and children’s welfare. The court prioritized family unity and societal morality over strict enforcement of child protection laws, akin to sacrificing a legal principle (prosecuting abuse) to preserve a perceived greater good (family stability). Critics argue this undermines legislative intent and risks normalizing exploitation.
2. Moral Reasoning in Live-In Relationships
The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied police protection to a live-in couple where the man was already married, invoking societal norms about marriage’s sanctity. The court conflated legal rights (e.g., personal liberty under Article 21) with moral judgments, reflecting a deontological emphasis on upholding social institutions despite individual freedoms.
3. Necessity Defense and Ethical Trade-Offs
While not explicitly cited in Indian cases, the trolley problem’s “lesser evil” principle resonates with legal defenses like necessity. For example, in R v. Dudley and Stephens (a British case often referenced globally), survivors of a shipwreck killed a cabin boy to avoid starvation. Indian courts face similar dilemmas when evaluating actions taken under duress, though such cases often provoke debates about moral culpability versus survival instincts.
Challenges for Judges
-
Moral-Legal Conflict: Judges must reconcile statutory mandates (e.g., POCSO’s strict liability for child sexual abuse) with societal expectations (e.g., preserving marriages).
-
Public Scrutiny: Heavy caseloads and media pressure can influence decisions, as seen in cases where delayed justice erodes public trust.
-
Doctrine of Double Effect: Judges may justify harmful outcomes if they are unintended side effects of lawful actions. For instance, allowing medical procedures with risky but lifesaving consequences.
Criticisms and Risks
-
Erosion of Legal Certainty: Overreliance on moral reasoning, as in the Kerala POCSO case, risks creating inconsistent precedents and weakening child protection frameworks.
Conclusion
The trolley problem underscores the ethical tightrope Indian judges walk when balancing legal rigor with societal morality. While utilitarian outcomes (e.g., preserving families) sometimes override deontological duties (e.g., prosecuting crimes), such decisions risk undermining legislative intent and legal consistency. As India’s judiciary grapples with these dilemmas, the challenge lies in harmonizing moral imperatives with constitutional and statutory mandates—ensuring justice remains both equitable and predictable.