Kolkata:
Dissenting judgments were vociferously advocated as a means of facilitating a culture of debate today by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. At an event or organised in Kolkata by The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Justice Dipankar Dutta highlighted why these comprise an important element of the judicial system.
“We don’t write dissenting judgments to point out flaws and loopholes in the opinion of the majority,” Justice Dutta said. “What the dissenting judge is doing is giving an absolutely new alternative view of the entire matter”.
The event commemorated Justice Radha Binod Pal, an iconic figure in international jurisprudence, best known for his courageous dissenting opinion at the Tokyo Trials, where he upheld the principles of fairness, impartiality, and legality.
Justice Dutta said differences are bound to occur and it all depends on how one interprets the law and applies the law to given facts and circumstances.
“The second important aspect of a dissenting judgment is to stimulate debate and discussion. Dissenting judgements encourage critical analysis and reflection of the issues at hand,” he said.
To explain the point, he referred to statistics for this year at the Supreme Court, where there are
nine-judge, seven-judge and five-judge benches.
Of nine five-judge bench, three have had dissenting opinions, he said. Same happened with two of three seven-judge bench and all three of three nine-judge bench decisions.
“This means of 15 decisions delivered by constitutional benches during the year, eight, that is more than half, had dissenting opinions, facilitating a constant culture of debate and learning from our colleagues on the bench,” he said.
Dissenting judgments also provide guidance for future cases by “planting seeds for potential reversal or modification,” he said.
“There have been cases in the past, where the minority opinion has in course of time been accepted as the correct opinion,” Justice Dutta added.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, who also spoke at the event, highlighted how the new Indian state distanced itself from the dissenting opinion of Justice Radha Binod Pal. The legal luminary was not India’s representative, he said, highlighting the need to reinvent legal definitions inherited from the colonial past.
“My view is that the importance of Justice Pal’s opinions is not really in the dissent. I think it is in the character of the person, it is in his courage… holding for what he thought to be truthful… If you have a larger interest, like the interest of a nation, or even higher – the interest of the truth,” he added.