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.
