Source: The Hindu 

Introduction  

The distinction between judicial dissents in the Indian Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court reveals fascinating insights into how different democratic systems approach judicial disagreement. While both courts value dissenting opinions as essential to democratic discourse, their underlying motivations differ significantly - with U.S. Supreme Court dissents often reflecting clear political divides based on presidential appointments, while Indian Supreme Court dissents span a broader spectrum including political, social, and purely intellectual disagreements. This difference stems largely from their distinct judicial appointment processes, with U.S. judges being political appointees while Indian judges are selected through a collegium system of senior judges. 

What are Notable Dissenting Opinions in Supreme Court Cases in the US And India? 

US Supreme Court 

• Glossip v. Gross (2015)  
  • Justice Stephen Breyer, a Democratic appointee, dissented 
  • He argued that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which prevented inhumane and degrading punishment 
  • This reflected his consistent stance against capital punishment 
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)  
  • Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican appointee, dissented 
  • The case concerned same-sex marriage rights 
  • He argued that the Constitution did not specifically address same-sex marriage rights 
  • This reflected his conservative stance on gay rights 

Indian Supreme Court 

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): 
  • Case Summary: 
    • This case is also known as “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of the most important cases when it comes to rule of law.  
    • The question that was raised before the Hon’ble Court was whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
  • Judges Dissent: 
    • Four judges supported suspending fundamental rights under Article 359 
    • Justice H.R. Khanna provided the lone dissent 
    • He argued that suspending Article 21 would leave no protection for life and liberty 
    • His dissenting view later became law through constitutional amendment 
• P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)  
  • Case Summary 
    • The P V Narasimha Rao case stemmed from allegations of bribery during a no-confidence motion in the Tenth Lok Sabha in 1991. 
    • P V Narasimha Rao, then Prime Minister, faced accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy to secure votes against the motion. 
    • Members from the JMM and Janata Dal (Ajit Singh Group) were allegedly bribed to vote against the motion. 
    • A subsequent prosecution ensued, questioning the immunity of Members of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105 of the Constitution regarding bribery charges. 
    • This landmark case clarified the scope of parliamentary immunity and its limits concerning criminal prosecutions for bribery 
  • Judges Dissent: 
    • Issue: Whether accepting bribes for voting in Parliament was protected under parliamentary privilege 
    • Majority ruled yes, granting immunity from prosecution 
    • Justices S.C. Agarwal and A.S. Anand dissented 
    • Their dissenting view was later validated in Sita Soren (2023) case 
    • The court eventually overruled the expanded view of immunity 
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors.  (2017)  
  • Case Summary: 
    • The Supreme Court laid down the landmark judgment and held that triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat is unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary.  
    • The majority held that the practice of triple talaq is not protected by the exception under Article 25 of the Constitution. 
  • Judges Dissent: 
    • Case concerned the constitutionality of triple talaq 
    • Majority struck it down as violating Muslim women's rights 
    • Justices J.S. Khehar and Abdul Nazeer dissented 
    • They argued triple talaq was integral to Sunni personal law 
    • They believed only legislature could intervene in religious practices 
• Aishat Shifav. v. State of Karnataka and othrs. (2022)  
  • Case Summary: 
    • The bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered a split verdict on this issue.  
    • While Justice Dhulia declared the ban to be unconstitutional, Justice Gupta upheld the ban.  
    • The matter is to be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. 
  • Judges Dissent: 
    • Case about wearing hijab in state-run schools 
    • Not a formal dissent but two separate opinions 
    • Justice Hemant Gupta supported state's right to enforce uniform dress code 
    • Justice Dhulia opposed, emphasizing diversity and tolerance 
    • Reflected different interpretations of secularism 
• State of U.P. v Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024)  
  • Case Summary: 
    • The case revolves around a constitutional dispute between the States and Union regarding who has the power to regulate industrial alcohol/denatured spirit.  
    • A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled 8:1 that States have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol, classifying it under "intoxicating liquor" as per Entry 8 of the State List.   
      • The majority opinion observed that the term should not be narrowly defined, including substances that could be misused for human consumption.    
      • In dissent, Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is specifically not meant for human consumption, stated differing interpretations of the term "intoxicating liquor." 
  • Judges Dissent: 
    • Case about taxation of industrial alcohol 
    • Eight judges supported states' right to tax industrial alcohol 
    • Justice B.V. Nagarathna provided lone dissent 
    • Disagreement centered on interpretation of "intoxicating liquor" 
    • Pure intellectual disagreement about constitutional interpretation

Conclusion

The varied nature of dissents in the Indian Supreme Court - whether political as in ADM Jabalpur, social as in Shayara Bano, or intellectual as in the recent industrial alcohol case - demonstrates the court's multifaceted approach to judicial disagreement. Unlike the more politically aligned dissents of the U.S. Supreme Court, Indian judicial dissents reflect a complex interplay of constitutional interpretation, social understanding, and intellectual discourse. This diversity in dissenting opinions has not only enriched India's judicial landscape but has also, in many cases, shaped future legal developments when these minority views eventually became majority positions through subsequent rulings or legislative changes.