The judgments of a country’s apex court on socially pertinent issues often invite a wide spectrum of public reactions reflecting a range of polarities. In this paper, we examine public reactions to three landmark judgments of the Indian Supreme Court – Triple Talaq (on Islamic divorce), Sect. 377 (focused on the criminalization of homosexual activity), and Sabarimala Temple (on restricting the entry of women and girls of reproductive age into a Hindu temple) – involving disadvantaged groups such as women and sexual minorities. To our knowledge, this is the first-ever work that investigates social web discourse pivoting landmark rulings for disadvantaged groups in India. We first annotate a substantial novel dataset of 23,418 comments, partially annotated through LLM-human partnership, particularly enriched by the participation of disadvantaged groups in the annotation process. Our analyses reveal that not all verdicts receive comparable support or criticism – civic receptivity considerably varies across verdicts, with the ban on instant Triple Talaq receiving overwhelming support. (Note that the authors express no opinion on the verdicts of the honorable Supreme Court of India, and limit the study to analyzing anonymous public discourse. Some of the contents in this paper can be disturbing and deemed offensive.)