Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context:

Dissent in the judiciary strengthens democratic values and constitutional interpretation.

About "dissent" in the Judiciary

Dissent means not agreeing with the opinion of the majority in the court. It plays an important role in the judicial system.

This allows judges to express different opinions on legal issues, which may be based on political, social or intellectual reasons. This reflects the diversity of thought within the judicial system.

How do dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court differ from those in the Indian Supreme Court?

In the U.S. Supreme Court, dissents are frequently driven by the political leanings of the judges, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Indian judicial dissents are less politically inclined. In India, judges are selected by a collegium system, which reduces political influence. Their dissents can originate from political, social, or purely intellectual disagreements that can offer a more diverse and comprehensive perspective.

Case study

The ADM Jabalpur case (1976), where the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights were suspended during the Emergency under Article 359. The majority of judges upheld this decision, but Justice H.R. Khanna dissented by arguing that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) should not be suspended even during an emergency. His dissent emphasised the protection of fundamental rights, which later became the rule after the 44th Constitution amendment.

Way Forward

Dissents in the judiciary help in the evolution of the Judicial system, which might not influence the immediate judgment, however, it initiates public debate to shape future judicial decisions, it also ensures that diverse views are considered while making final judgments.

Must Read Articles:

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES

THE CODE OF CONDUCT JUDGES NEED TO FOLLOW

HOW SC DEALS WITH ERRANT JUDGES

Source:

The Hindu