The year that was–14 | Lone dissenting voices in Constitution Bench judgments of 2024
Who can say that there will not be any larger Bench constituted in the near future involving the same point of law potentially relying upon any of the dissenting opinions marked above, writes Gyanvi Khanna.
Gyanvi Khanna
Published on: 10 January 2025, 02:04 pm
DISSENT, whether of the public or judges, forms the bedrock of any democracy. In fact, some famous cases are known more for their dissenting opinions. One such case is that of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivakant Shukla.
Four judges of a five-judge Bench unanimously held against the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to live (Article 21), during a national emergency.
However, Justice H.R. Khanna, in his lone dissent, opined that Article 21 cannot be considered as a sole repository of the right to life. In other words, even if this Article were not part of the Indian Constitution, no one could deprive a person of his life and personal liberty.
“Sanctity of life and liberty was not something new when the Constitution was drafted. It represented a fact of higher values that mankind began to cherish in its evolution from a state of tooth and claw to a civilised existence.
Likewise, the principle that no one shall be deprived of life and liberty without the authority of law was not the gift of the Constitution. It was a necessary corollary of the concept relating to the sanctity of life and liberty; it existed and was in force before the coming into force of the Constitution,” Justice Khanna penned.
Subsequently, the 44th Amendment of the Indian Constitution provided a long-due relief and prohibited suspension of Article 20 (Protection in respect of conviction for offences) as well as Article 21.
Timeless cases such as these remind us that dissent is a beacon of hope and an important facet of a democratic country. The past year has also witnessed some of the lone and bold dissents that made their mark in the history of the Indian judiciary.
Starting from the Mineral Development Authority versus SAIL to the State of UP versus Lalta Prasad Vaish case, each dissenting opinion holds its unique importance. Three of such decisions were penned by women justices. This article aims to take the readers through all those decisions.
Mineral Area Development Authority versus M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors.
The first one was in July when a nine-judge Bench decided whether the payment of royalty by a holder of a mining lease could be considered a tax. The Bench also decided whether state legislatures have the power to levy tax on mineral rights after the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (Act).
While eight out of nine judges held that royalty is not in the nature of tax; it is a contractual consideration and states do have the power to levy tax, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented.
She opined that royalty is in nature of a tax under Section 9 of the Act and not merely a contractual payment. The judge reasoned that though Entry 50 of the State List (within Schedule Seven of the Constitution) provides the power to levy taxes on mineral rights, the same is subject to the limitations imposed by the Parliament.
