A+| A| A-
Decoding Justice Singhvi's Judgments - Without Contempt
Two 2013 judgments of the Supreme Court - in the Red Beacon and Section 377 cases - were delivered by a two-judge bench headed by the same justice. The one was hailed as reformist and the other as regressive. But both judgments lack cogent analysis of the law, use inconsistent reasoning and reach unexplained conclusions.
Views are personal.
Unlike the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India sits in benches and that way there are many courts within our Supreme Court. And while we can – as we usually do – analyse and describe decisions of our apex court as verdicts of the “Supreme Court”, the so-called Supreme Court verdicts, objectively speaking, essentially represent the opinion of a particular bench and, if it is a bench of only two judges (as is the case mostly), the opinion of the presiding judge.
It is with this perspective that this piece is written against the backdrop of two judgments of the Supreme Court in the “Red Beacon case” and “Section 377 case”, both delivered by a two-judge division bench of the Court.
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
