Abstract

This paper examines the jurisprudential significance of dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court of India's interpretation of fundamental rights. Through critical analysis of landmark dissents, the research reveals how minority judicial voices have shaped the evolution of constitutional rights discourse in India. The study demonstrates that dissenting opinions, though lacking immediate precedential value, often anticipate future doctrinal developments and contribute to the progressive interpretation of fundamental rights. Notable dissents, including Justice Subba Rao's privacy articulation in Kharak Singh, Justice Khanna's defense of liberty during Emergency in ADM Jabalpur, and Justice Chandrachud's critique of the Aadhaar system, have later become foundational to India's constitutional jurisprudence. The research adopts a comparative approach, drawing parallels between American and Indian judicial dissent traditions to contextualize the transformative role of dissent in constitutional democracies. The findings reveal that dissent serves multiple functions: it preserves judicial independence, offers alternative constitutional visions, catalyzes doctrinal evolution, and reinforces constitutional morality. By analyzing the delayed vindication of dissenting opinions, this study establishes that judicial dissent represents not merely disagreement but a vital mechanism for constitutional growth and the protection of individual liberties in India's democratic framework.

Keywords