Font size:
Print
Dissent and Indian Judiciary
Context:
Dissent forms the backbone of a robust democracy, enabling diverse perspectives to challenge majority opinions.
More on News
- This principle applies not only to citizens and parliamentarians but also to judges in constitutional courts.
- In democracies like India and the United States, judicial dissents serve as powerful expressions of alternative viewpoints, though the motivations and contexts for such dissents differ in the two systems.
Political Dissents: A Tale of Two Systems
- USA: In the U.S., judicial dissent often aligns with the political inclinations of judges, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
- For instance, Justice Stephen Breyer, a Democratic appointee, opposed capital punishment in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross (2015), arguing it violated the Eighth Amendment.
- Conversely, Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican appointee, dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), asserting that the Constitution did not address the right to same-sex marriage.
- These dissents reflect ideological divides that influence judicial reasoning in the U.S.
- India: In India, however, judicial appointments are made through a collegium system, reducing the influence of political affiliation. Dissents in the Indian Supreme Court arise from a broader spectrum of disagreements.
- In ADM Jabalpur (1976), Justice H.R. Khanna famously dissented against the suspension of fundamental rights during a national emergency, prioritising constitutional integrity over political expediency.
- Similarly, in P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998), Justices S.C. Agarwal and A.S. Anand dissented against the majority view that parliamentary privilege shielded members from prosecution for accepting bribes.
- These dissents often stand as moral beacons, later influencing legal developments, as seen in Sita Soren (2023), which overturned the majority view in the Rao case.
Social Dissents: Reflecting Societal Complexities
Judicial dissents in India also delve into social issues, reflecting differing interpretations of the Constitution’s interplay with societal norms.
- Triple Talaq: In Shayara Bano (2017), while the majority struck down triple talaq as unconstitutional, Justices J.S. Khehar and Abdul Nazeer dissented, arguing it was an integral part of Sunni personal law and not subject to judicial scrutiny.
- They emphasised that legislative intervention, not judicial action, was the appropriate avenue for reforming religious practices.
- Secularism: The Aishat Shifa (2022) case further showcased divergent views on secularism.
- Justice Hemant Gupta upheld a universal dress code in State-run schools, asserting that secularism excluded religious expression in such spaces.
- Justice Dhulia, however, stressed the values of diversity and tolerance, highlighting the inclusive essence of the Constitution.
- Such disagreements underscore the judiciary’s engagement with India’s pluralistic fabric.
Intellectual Critiques: Purely Legal Divergences
- Judicial dissents also emerge from intellectual disagreements over constitutional interpretation.
- In Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024), concerning the taxation of industrial alcohol, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented against eight judges, arguing that industrial alcohol, being unfit for human consumption, could not be classified as “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 of List 2 in the Seventh Schedule.
- This dissent hinged solely on differing textual interpretations of the Constitution, reflecting an academic critique rather than ideological or social discord.
Judicial dissents enrich the legal landscape by challenging the status quo and fostering a dynamic dialogue within the judiciary. In both systems (US and India), dissents underscore the judiciary’s vital role as a guardian of democratic principles and a forum for diverse perspectives.
