Powerful Dissents By Supreme Court Judges That Rippled 2018

"A dissent in a court of last resort… is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed," said Justice HR Khanna while dissenting with the majority in ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla.Last year witnessed a rare instance when Justice DY Chandrachud overruled a judgment authored by his father Justice YV Chandrachud in ADM Jabalpur case.Dissenting opinions by Supreme Court judges are also like planting seeds which later transforms into trees which gives fruits of justice. There are other instances where dissenting opinions become majority judgments decades later. For example, the dissenting opinion of Justice Fazal Ali in AK Gopalan v. State of Madras got recognized later in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which overruled the majority opinion of Gopalan and held that any law which deprives a person of personal liberty under Article 21 should satisfy the requirement of Article 19.Though dissents have no binding effects legally, they are important references for future litigations.Following are ten important dissenting opinions of the year 2018:AADHAARAadhaar Project Wholly Unconstitutional: Justice DY ChandrachudIn an emphatic dissent from the majority, Justice Chandrachud held the entire Aadhaar project to be unconstitutional. The very act of passing the Aadhaar Act 2016 as a Money Bill was held to be unconstitutional by Justice Chandrachud, dissenting from the majority view expressed through Justice Sikri's judgment that there was no impropriety in introducing it as a Money Bill.BHIMA KOREGAONVoices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes: Justice DY ChandrachudUnable to agree with the views of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar "as a matter of principle", Justice Chandrachud observed that "dissent is a symbol of vibrant democracy" and "voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes" to hold that a special investigation team must be appointed to probe the arrest of five activists in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence and probe must be monitored by the court.SABARIMALARationality Has No Place in Matters Of Faith: Justice Indu MalhotraIn a sharp dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman in the constitution bench which heard the Sabarimala matter, opposed the entry of women of all age groups in the temple. She opined that issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily be interfered by the court. She observed that Sabarimala shrine and the deity has the protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and that notions of rationality should not be seen in matters of religion. She opined that the court should not interfere unless there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion.AYODHYAWhat constitutes an essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrine, tenets, and beliefs of that religion itself: Justice S Abdul NazeerThe Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case to a larger bench. While the majority judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, for himself and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice S Abdul Nazeer delivered the dissenting opinion. The majority judgment clarified that the observations made in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. the judgment that the mosque was not an integral part of Islam have to be understood in the context of land acquisition proceedings.Dissenting with majority view to not refer the case to a larger bench, Justice Nazeer said that what constitutes an essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of that religion itself. He also opined that the conclusion in paragraph 82 of Ismail Faruqui that "A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open" was arrived at without undertaking comprehensive examination.VICTIM APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTALThe victim cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the State or the complainant: Justice Deepak GuptaJustice Deepak Gupta dissented with a judgment by the majority which held that there is no need of seeking leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(3) of CrPC. The judge said that concept of 'seeking leave' is to prevent the high court from being flooded with appeals and also to ensure that innocent person who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the high court.DEATH PENALTY REVIEWTime has come to examine the need for death penalty as punishment especially its purpose and practice: Justice Kurian Joseph, other two judges disagreeJustice Kurian Joseph, while commuting death ...

Powerful Dissents By Supreme Court Judges That Rippled 2018

Ashok.KM

Tags