Judicial Majoritarianism has been a topic of concern and debate recently, especially in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgement on demonetization. The concept revolves around the emphasis on superior numbers or numerical majorities in cases that require substantial interpretation of constitutional provisions. Derived from Article 145(5) of the Constitution, this principle mandates a majority consensus for all judgements in such cases, also allowing for dissenting judgements or opinions from judges.
In significant cases, the law requires the formation of Constitutional Benches consisting of five or more judges, as per Article 145(3) of the Constitution. These Benches can vary in composition, including five, seven, nine, 11, or 13 judges.
Issues Associated with Judicial Majoritarianism
The primary concern associated with Judicial Majoritarianism is the potential denial of merit. In cases where the minority decision demonstrates superior reasoning, the impact of such a decision is often little, given the weightage attached to the majority judgement. This problem was exemplified in the Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. case of 1962 and the A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case of 1976.
Moreover, the application of Judicial Majoritarianism can lead to obscure situations. When all judges of a Bench base their rulings on the same set of data, any difference in judgement results from varying methodologies or logic applied during interpretation. Thus, there is a chance that the majority may succumb to methodological errors or be limited by their ‘judicial hunch’.
Additionally, the efficiency of head-counting procedures for judicial determinations on significant constitutional questions is debatable. Interestingly, a study found decreased rates of dissent when the Chief Justice was a part of the Bench, adding another layer of complexity to the debate.
Exploring Possible Solutions
Addressing the concerns raised by Judicial Majoritarianism may involve innovative solutions that attempt to balance experience and popular opinion. One suggestion involves designing a system that either attributes more weightage to the votes of senior judges, considering their experience, or to junior judges, aiming to represent popular sentiments better.
However, such alternatives can only be seriously considered after questioning the premise and rationale of head-counting in judicial decision-making. The lack of discourses scrutinizing judicial majoritarianism represents a notable gap in our knowledge about the functioning of our Supreme Court.
As Constitutional Bench matters continue to be listed for hearing and judgments reserved, it’s imperative to reflect upon the arguments surrounding judicial majoritarianism, which inevitably influence the outcome of these cases.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Question
Exemplifying the relevance of these concerns, a previous year question from the UPSC Civil Services Examination asked:
“We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?”
Reflecting on this question, it becomes evident that while the British Parliament maintains sovereignty regarding legislation, the power of India’s Parliament is notably limited. In India, the Supreme Court refers matters relating to the constitutionality of an Act to the Constitution Bench. As such, understanding the dynamics of judicial decision-making, particularly with concepts like Judicial Majoritarianism, becomes crucial for a comprehensive view of India’s legislative framework.
