Justice Dutta clarified that dissenting opinions are not intended to highlight flaws in majority judgments but to present alternative perspectives on legal matters.
Kolkata: At an event organized by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Dutta emphasized the value of dissenting judgments in fostering a culture of debate within the judicial system.
Justice Dutta clarified that dissenting opinions are not intended to highlight flaws in majority judgments but to present alternative perspectives on legal matters.
“We don’t write dissenting judgments to point out flaws and loopholes in the majority view,” Justice Dutta explained. “A dissenting judge offers an entirely new interpretation of the issue.”
The event honored Justice Radha Binod Pal, renowned for his dissenting opinion during the Tokyo Trials, where he upheld principles of fairness, impartiality, and legality. Justice Dutta noted that differing views are inevitable, as legal interpretations vary based on facts and circumstances.
He highlighted the role of dissenting judgments in stimulating critical analysis and debate. Referencing recent Supreme Court data, he mentioned that out of 15 constitutional bench decisions this year (including five-, seven-, and nine-judge benches), eight featured dissenting opinions.
“This shows that more than half of the decisions had dissenting opinions, promoting continuous debate and learning among judges,” he said. He added that dissenting views can guide future cases, potentially leading to the reversal or modification of earlier majority rulings.
“Over time, minority opinions have often been recognized as the correct interpretation,” Justice Dutta remarked.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, also present at the event, spoke about Justice Radha Binod Pal’s legacy. He highlighted how the Indian state initially distanced itself from Justice Pal’s dissent at the Tokyo Trials and stressed the need to revisit colonial-era legal definitions.
“The significance of Justice Pal’s opinion lies not just in the dissent but in his character and courage. His commitment to truth and justice, even against prevailing views, remains a powerful example,” Justice Narasimha concluded.
