Are the politicians and petitioners showing their stubbornness by seeking a review?In this week there were few landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and one thing that is noticeable in those judgments is the dissenting views of the judges. Three notable judgments that have dissenting opinions are the Aadhaar verdict, the Sabarimala temple verdict and the verdict related to the arrest of five activists, now under house arrest.
In the Aadhaar verdict, Justice Chandrachud felt that the Aadhaar Act 2016 is unconstitutional because it was passed as a money bill. The Congress promptly shot back by saying that they will move the apex court to reconsider the plea about the method in which it was passed.
In the Sabarimala temple verdict the dissent was expressed by Justice Indu Malhotra who said that the courts should not take up judicial reviews on religious faiths and after the verdict, Ayyappa Dharma Sena said they are going to file a review petition.
In the verdict related to the arrest of five activists, Justice D Y Chandrachud dissented by saying dissent is a symbol of vibrant democracy. After this verdict, the petitioners found a vindication in their stand and advocate Vrinda Grover found the verdict fractured because of the dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud.
In all of the above judgments, it is found that the petitioners are planning to ask for a review based on the dissenting judgments. Though in one of its verdict the apex court said that 'Dissent is the safety valve of democracy', do you think that the views expressed by the petitioners or the political parties to go for a review on those majority judgments show their stubbornness devoid of basic facts?