Dissent connotes disagreement. It is per se neither deplorable nor delightful. A committee or a court bench or a corporate / government department is expected to consist of persons capable of thinking differently from one another and thereby contributing variety and quality to decisional inputs. Lack of unanimity is therefore inherent in decisions made by such bodies. If these bodies are packed only with yes-men, unanimity will be the norm.
A lot has been written about 'dissent' among officials of the Defence Ministry especially regarding Rafale pricing decisions, among the three members of the Election Commission in their response to complaints against the election speeches of Narendra Modi and among the judges of the apex court regarding the harassment complaint against the CJI. It is ironic that the media which is supposed to be intellectually endowed and therefore ought to welcome different opinions has chosen to criticise the decisions of these institutions because of presence of dissent. It is a pity that what ought to be welcomed, is criticised as unacceptable.
Election Commission has three members and not two so that dissent does not lead to stalemate. The bench hearing the complaint against the CJI consists of three judges not to avoid dissent among the judges but to ensure that disagreement does not stifle conclusion.
The panel of three judges has now concluded that the harassment complaint against the CJI lacks substance. There is apparently a conspiracy against the CJI and an attempt to browbeat the Supreme Court. It is reported, though not confirmed, that Justice Chandrachud favoured inclusion of an outsider in the panel hearing the complaint. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But a dissenting opinion on constitution of the panel does not make the conclusion of the three judges any less valid.
An enlightened society learns to live with and even encourage dissent without deifying or demonising it. Constructive dissent adds value to democracy and does not demean it. On the other hand, motivated dissent with a hidden agenda destroys democracy.
A lot has been written about 'dissent' among officials of the Defence Ministry especially regarding Rafale pricing decisions, among the three members of the Election Commission in their response to complaints against the election speeches of Narendra Modi and among the judges of the apex court regarding the harassment complaint against the CJI. It is ironic that the media which is supposed to be intellectually endowed and therefore ought to welcome different opinions has chosen to criticise the decisions of these institutions because of presence of dissent. It is a pity that what ought to be welcomed, is criticised as unacceptable.
Election Commission has three members and not two so that dissent does not lead to stalemate. The bench hearing the complaint against the CJI consists of three judges not to avoid dissent among the judges but to ensure that disagreement does not stifle conclusion.
The panel of three judges has now concluded that the harassment complaint against the CJI lacks substance. There is apparently a conspiracy against the CJI and an attempt to browbeat the Supreme Court. It is reported, though not confirmed, that Justice Chandrachud favoured inclusion of an outsider in the panel hearing the complaint. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But a dissenting opinion on constitution of the panel does not make the conclusion of the three judges any less valid.
An enlightened society learns to live with and even encourage dissent without deifying or demonising it. Constructive dissent adds value to democracy and does not demean it. On the other hand, motivated dissent with a hidden agenda destroys democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment