Purpose of Judiciary- Justice or well-being of people?
<p><strong>The situation described below is purely hypothetical created by me for the sake of question.</strong></p>
<p>Suppose in a democratic country there exist more than one community on the basis of religion, caste, etc and a conflict arises among two of them (say A and B, <strong>A is minority</strong>)for an issue of X(X may be any controversial event, claim for property rights,etc). The government currently in power is highly biased and favoured for B for it's political benifit. (Like getting votes,etc.) The judiciary is officially declared to be independent of the government.</p>
<p>According to the moral, logical and historical basis suppose that the wishes of community A is more favoured than community B. <strong>Judgement favouring A will be justice while for B will be injustice.</strong> Judgement in favour of A will surely dis-please the majority B. What should an ideal judiciary do if :</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is surely known that there will be intense communal violences  among A and B if justice is provided i.e. judgement is in favour of A; thus bad for nation's health ?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Same as (1) above except that it is  known that communal violences <strong>may</strong> happen, but will be less intense  (i.e. very short term violence/riots) and country will soon become stable ?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Same as (1) above except that it known that there is a significant indication that a judgement in favour of B will give B this as an advantage for future also and hence in long term , B will always be tyrannical on A for it's benifits ?</p>
</li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
<p>What should an ideal judiciary do</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice according to the law.</p>
<p>The consequences of making decisions should <em>not</em> be taken into account unless it is the law that they should be. (Where there is no such law, consequential violence is supposed to be wholly dealt with by law enforcement, not by judiciary.)</p>
<p>Considering your 3 scenarios:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><em>if</em> it is the law that the inevitability of violence following a decision (which would otherwise be just) should steer the decision maker away from that decision, then it simply invalidates your premise that &quot;Judgement favouring A will be justice&quot;: according to that law, justice will be a judgment favouring B.</p>
</li>
<li><p>if there is no law that decision makers should consider consequences of their decisions and decide so that the consequences are the least problematic, then an ideal judiciary should decide in favour of A in all your 3 scenarios. The consequential violence will then be the problem with whatever (e.g. the politicians, the legislation, the exec branch of the government etc.) and <em>not</em> with the judiciary.</p>
</li>
</ul>

judiciary conflict-of-interest