The senior advocate remarked that dissents are not just a safety value but also send a message to the public about the health of the court.
Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman on Friday remarked there should have been a dissenting judgment in the recent verdict of Supreme Court on abrogation of Article 370 as he stressed on the importance of dissenting judgments.
“On reading the very exhaustive and learned judgments on Kashmir recently handed down by a constitution bench of five judges, my regret has been that there was no dissent,” Nariman said.
Though Nariman acknowledged that a dissent would have made no difference to the outcome of the case challenging the union government’s decision, he said that a dissenting opinion would have helped the public better understand the case and the issues involved.
“But better still, it would have helped the not-so-well informed general public to better understand and appreciate the contours of this unique very long and somewhat complicated case about India’s northern-most state.”
Nariman was speaking as Guest of Honour at the 28th Justice Sunanda Bhandare Memorial lecture which was delivered by Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna on the topic “Role of Judiciary in Empowerment of Indian Women”.
Nariman in his address appreciated Justice Nagarathna’s ability and willingness to differ from other judges on important issues before the top court.
“What I admire is not just her legal knowledge but in important constitutional cases, she has shown that she is able, ready and willing to dissent from the views expressed by other colleagues on the bench,” he said.
Commenting on the importance of dissenting judgments, Nariman said they are not just a safety valve but also send a message to the public about the health of a court.
“Yes, I do believe it is needed because often a dissent in a bench of judges, whether of three, five seven, or nine is not just a safety valve; it also sends a message of assurance to the ever curious and ever anxious general public that the highest court is in robust health and doing its allotted task well,” the senior lawyer said.
Recently, former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Fali Nariman had also commented on the Article 370 verdict and called it very disturbing. Justice Nariman is the son of Fali Nariman.
Justice Nariman had said that by refusing to decide on the conversion of the State into the Union Territory, the apex court allowed the Union government to bypass Article 356 as per which President’s rule in a State is possible only for a year.
“Article 356 deals with Constitutional breakdown, when Centre takes over. In no circumstances can it go beyond one year, unless there is national emergency or Election Commission should say elections are not possible,” Justice Nariman had said.
