Rishabh Taneja* & Ms. Akriti**
ABSTRACT
Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud once expressed, “Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If you don’t allow dissent, the pressure valve of democracy will burst.” The remark is the live wire preserving the democratic character of India by assigning equal weight-age to a variety of opinions among the different subject matters; with law being no exception. In India, judicial dissents have gone through a gamut; beautifully inscribed on the golden pages of legal history. However, in several European Nations, courts consider uniformity and certainty as the “potential hallmarks” of public confidence. This refrains them from expressing their dissent on a matter for one simple reason i.e. the principles of law be settled once for all’ rather than being subjected to different interpretations. Undoubtedly, this results in the uniform application of law; but it represents a very stringent model of application of legal doctrines across the entire spectrum of the courts. An argument is also made that difference of opinion among the judges often leads to chaotic results so much so that sometimes it becomes a hefty task to cull out the ratio of the judgment. Coming to the impact assessment of the same, this only results in confusion, chaos and incomprehensibility. This paper tries to explore some of the handpicked dissents in the Indian history, which were landmark in their impulse, and appeals to the brooding spirit of legal domain landscape. It tries to explore the various methods where uniformity in Indian judgments can be maintained and the expression of a democratic judicial dissent can be preserved equally.
Keywords: Dissenting Opinion, Bench, Rule of Wholesome Prescription, Greatest Common Measure of Agreement
