Law Is Not Neutral: Why History and Intent Matter

 

When analyzing any law, it is essential to examine its historical context and the intent behind its creation. Laws do not emerge in a vacuum—they are products of specific political, social, and economic conditions. Therefore, we must ask critical questions: Why was this law enacted? Who drafted it, and in whose interest? Was it designed to empower citizens and safeguard their rights, or was it intended to control, restrict, or suppress them?

For instance, during colonial rule, the British Empire introduced the sedition law in India to silence dissent and maintain authoritarian control over the population. Its primary function was to criminalize resistance against colonial authority, thereby curbing the democratic aspirations of the people. In contrast, post-independence India has also witnessed the enactment of people-centric laws such as the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This legislation is grounded in principles of transparency and accountability and aims to empower citizens by giving them access to information about the functioning of the government.

These examples highlight a crucial point: laws can either be instruments of repression or tools for liberation. Some laws are anti-people, designed to preserve power structures and suppress dissent, while others are progressive and seek to promote justice, equity, and participatory governance. The law, therefore, is not a neutral entity. It reflects the values, priorities, and power dynamics of the society in which it is framed and enforced.

Given this, it is vital that students—especially those studying law—understand the historical evolution of legal systems and specific laws. Legal education must go beyond technical knowledge and procedural rules; it should include critical engagement with the socio-political origins of legislation. Law schools should prioritize the study of history and context as part of their curriculum to foster a deeper and more critical understanding of legal frameworks. Only then can future legal practitioners truly appreciate the transformative potential of law as well as its capacity for oppression.