The Necessity of Judicial Discipline in India's Supreme Court
The discipline of judicial disagreement
Image: Deccan Herald
Context
Judicial discipline refers to the adherence to established legal precedents and the protocols that govern how judges interact with one another's rulings. In India, the Supreme Court's structure has expanded, leading to more instances where different benches may rule on the same legal questions, creating a need for clear guidelines on how to manage these disagreements.
What The Author Says
This piece argues that the discipline of judicial disagreement is crucial for maintaining coherence within the Supreme Court of India. As the number of judges increases, the potential for conflicting rulings also rises, necessitating a structured approach to judicial disagreements.
Key Arguments
Facts and Opinions in the article
📗 Facts
- The Supreme Court of India expanded from 34 to 38 judges.
- The case Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra involved judges referring questions to the Chief Justice.
- The doctrine of bench discipline was articulated in the case Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand (1965).
- The seven-judge bench reference in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank has been pending for seven years.
📕 Opinions
- The author believes that the current judicial system's unpredictability undermines its legitimacy.
- The article suggests that India's judiciary needs a more structured approach to manage disagreements.
- The author contends that codifying referral procedures would enhance judicial coherence.
Counterpoints
Judicial unpredictability can enhance public confidence.
Some argue that a lack of rigid jurisprudence allows litigants to feel they have a chance, fostering trust in the judicial system.
Judicial discretion is essential for nuanced rulings.
The ability for judges to interpret laws differently can lead to more tailored and just outcomes in complex cases.
Codification may stifle judicial creativity.
A strict referral system could limit judges' ability to make innovative legal interpretations that adapt to evolving societal norms.
Bias Assessment
The author emphasizes the need for structure in judicial processes, potentially overlooking the benefits of judicial flexibility.
Why This Matters
The recent expansion of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges increases the likelihood of conflicting judgments. This situation highlights the urgent need for a robust framework to ensure judicial coherence and integrity.
🤔 Think About
- •How might increased judicial discipline affect the evolution of legal interpretations?
- •What are the potential downsides of a rigid referral system?
- •Can a balance be struck between judicial independence and necessary coherence?
- •How does the public perception of the judiciary change with more predictable outcomes?
Opens original article on Deccan Herald
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Should the Supreme Court implement stricter referral procedures for conflicting judgments?
Connecting to poll...
More about Supreme Court of India
Tamil Nadu's CM Urges PM Modi to Halt Karnataka's Mekedatu Dam Project
Moneycontrol • May 27, 2026
Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah Faces Pressure to Resign; Supreme Court Supports Election Commission's Authority
Deccan Herald • May 27, 2026
Bengali Filmmaker Anik Dutta Passes Away at 66 After Tragic Fall
Ndtv • May 27, 2026
