Dissent in Constitutional Benches: How It Shapes Legal Doctrine
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a constitutional democracy like India, dissenting opinions are not merely disagreements—they are powerful instruments of legal evolution. While majority opinions become binding law, dissents in constitutional benches of the supreme court of india often shape future jurisprudence, challenge prevailing interpretations, and preserve minority voices within the judiciary.
This article explores how dissent in constitutional benches has influenced legal doctrine, backed by landmark judgments, constitutional provisions, and the importance of judicial plurality in a dynamic legal system.
What Is a Constitutional Bench?
- A constitutional bench is constituted under Article 145(3) of the constitution of india and comprises five or more judges of the Supreme Court.
- It is formed to decide substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
- The majority opinion becomes the law of the land under Article 141, but dissenting opinions are recorded and published.
The Role and Significance of Dissent
1. Voice of Judicial Conscience
- Dissents allow judges to express principled disagreement without being bound by precedent or majority consensus.
- They often reflect progressive constitutional morality, which may later be embraced by society or future benches.
2. Seeds for Future Change
- Several dissenting judgments that were once overruled or sidelined have later become the bedrock of Indian constitutional law.
Landmark Dissents That Shaped Indian Jurisprudence
1. Justice H.R. Khanna in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
- During the Emergency, the SC ruled that right to life (Article 21) could be suspended.
- Justice Khanna’s lone dissent argued that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during emergencies.
- Though a minority then, his view was later accepted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and remains a moral high point in Indian legal history.
2. Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963)
- Dissented to argue that the right to privacy is implicit in Article 21.
- This view, initially rejected, laid the foundation for the landmark Puttaswamy (2017) judgment affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
3. Justice Chandrachud in the Sabarimala Verdict (2018)
- Dissented in the review petition and defended women’s right to worship under Article 14 and Article 25.
- While the majority kept the issue pending for larger deliberation, the dissent stood firmly for gender equality.
4. Justice Indu Malhotra in Sabarimala (Original Verdict, 2018)
- The sole dissenting voice argued that courts should not interfere in essential religious practices.
- Her opinion continues to influence ongoing discussions on religious autonomy and judicial restraint.
5. Justice Nariman in NJAC Judgment (2015)
- Strongly defended judicial independence by striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
- Though a majority opinion, his remarks on judicial primacy over executive control have fueled debates on Collegium reform.
Constitutional & Legal Significance
- Article 141: Declares that the law declared by the SC is binding on all courts, but only the majority opinion.
- Dissents are not binding, but are cited as persuasive authority in future rulings.
- They uphold the pluralistic nature of judicial reasoning, especially in constitutional matters that shape national policy and rights.
Conclusion
Dissent in constitutional benches serves as the moral compass of the judiciary. Though not immediately enforceable, dissenting judgments often gain relevance over time as societal values, legal interpretations, and governance models evolve. They reflect the dynamic spirit of the Constitution, reminding us that law is not static—it grows through debate, disagreement, and courage.
In a democracy committed to liberty and justice, dissent is not disloyalty—it is democracy in its most honest form.
RELATED Blog
0 comments