Recording a dissenting opinion in government — at any level — is not easy business. Having to disagree with the majority of your peers is stressful. Worse, if the disagreement places you on the wrong side of those in power, you might end up in a departmental backwater or face retribution that can end your career. If, on the other hand, you go against popular opinion, you risk being ostracised by the very people whose interests you sought to protect. This is with reference to both Lavasa and Justice Chandrachud, who failed to make a difference to outcomes, as the Election Commission and the Supreme Court’s in-house panel dismissed the respective complaints against Prime Minister Modi and CJI Gogoi.
Yet, the fact that they expressed their dissenting opinions at all is worth something.