In verdicts with dissent, Supreme Court judges typically present their own separate opinions without engaging with or rebutting each other’s views. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, where judges often address and counter each other’s perspectives, Indian judges tend to avoid direct interaction in their judgments. They focus solely on expressing their individual reasoning.
New Delhi: In a landmark ruling issued by the Supreme Court on November 5, the majority opinion stated that not all private property should be classified as a community resource.
This decision sparked dissent and concurrent opinions that challenged a specific sentence in the majority verdict penned by former Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud.
Justice B. V. Nagarathna raised concerns about the majority’s characterization, particularly the remark that
“The Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.”
Throughout her opinion, Justice Nagarathna expressed her disapproval on at least seven occasions regarding the labelling of past judges as having done a disservice to the Constitution. Similarly, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who issued a dissenting opinion, criticized the term “Krishna Iyer doctrine,” describing it as “harsh, and could have been avoided.”
Although the contentious sentence was not included in Justice Chandrachud’s final opinion likely removed after further consideration it highlights a growing trend among judges to engage thoughtfully with differing perspectives in their rulings.
In the recent same-sex marriage decision from October 2023, Justice Chandrachud incorporated a section in his minority opinion titled “Response to the opinion of Justice Ravindra Bhat.”
In turn, Justice Bhat addressed this by stating he intended “to clear the air or dispel any misunderstanding.”
The Supreme Court of India often delivers judgments with a range of opinions, including both majority and dissenting views. Dissenting opinions play an important role in shaping the judicial process and legal landscape for several key reasons:
- Influence on Future Precedents: Dissenting opinions can significantly impact future rulings by providing alternative legal interpretations that may be adopted in later cases. While a dissenting view does not change the outcome of the case at hand, it can serve as a foundation for future legal developments.
- Transparency in Judicial Reasoning: These opinions help reveal the diversity of thought within the Court, allowing the public and legal professionals to understand the full spectrum of judicial reasoning. This transparency contributes to greater clarity in how decisions are made.
- Counterbalance to Majority Opinion: Dissenting opinions serve as an important check on the majority view, ensuring that different perspectives are fully considered before a decision is finalized. This helps maintain balance and fairness within the judicial system.
- Guidance for Lower Courts: Dissenting judgments often offer valuable insights into how laws should be interpreted, especially in cases where the majority opinion is vague or contentious. Lower courts can look to dissenting opinions for guidance in dealing with similar legal questions.
For example, in the 2023 demonetization case, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that the demonetization decision should have been passed through legislation rather than through a government notification. Her dissent raised important concerns regarding the procedural aspects of the government’s action.
In another instance, during the 2024 property rights case, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed strong dissent, particularly regarding the majority’s critique of the Krishna Iyer Doctrine. They felt the majority’s criticism was unfounded and unnecessary, pointing out that such remarks could have been avoided.
These cases illustrate how dissenting opinions contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the law. By bringing in alternative perspectives, they ensure that all views are taken into account when interpreting the law, thereby enriching the judicial process and fostering a more robust legal system.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
