The other side of the debate

Alongside the landmark orders, dissenting judgments authored by justices who did not concur with the majority views, became a talking point this year, showcasing the vibrant nature of India’s democracy where the ‘other’ viewpoint ignites debate and gives the nation food for thought on important issues.

For example, Justice DY Chandrachud said in his dissenting order that the Aadhaar law was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the privacy of individuals. He stressed that the passage of the “Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill is an abuse of the constitutional process”. Justice Chandrachud added that dignity and the rights of individuals cannot be made to depend on algorithms or probabilities, and that constitutional guarantees cannot be subject to the vicissitudes of technology. “Allowing private entities to use Aadhaar numbers, under Section 57, will lead to commercial exploitation of the personal data of individuals without consent and could also lead to individual profiling,” he wrote.

Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole woman judge on the Constitution Bench that opened the doors of the Sabarimala temple to women of all ages, cautioned against judicial review of religious faith and practice, especially in the absence of an aggrieved person from that particular religious sect. The prohibition for admitting women between the ages of 10 and 50 at the hill shrine, she held, was an essential practice for the devotees of Lord Ayappa, the presiding deity of the temple. She felt that they formed a separate religious denomination and was thus protected under the Constitution.