Human beings have the innate quality to scrutinise, criticise and dissent when issues concern others. When it comes to self, we crave appreciation, accolades, awards and recognition. While getting appreciation or criticising others, we desire the world to take note. When faced with criticism or dissent, we want it to be whispered in our ears.Cambridge dictionary defines dissent as ‘a strong difference of opinion on a particular subject, especially about an official suggestion or plan or a popular belief’. Black’s law dictionary defines it as ‘contrariety of opinion, refusal to agree with something already stated or adjudged or to an act previously performed’.There is a common strategy to silence dissent. First, drown the dissenter with abuse, followed by intimidation and finally, threaten with legal and illegal counter-action. Let us revisit some past incidents to try decoding Justice D Y Chandrachud’s recent quote, “Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If you muzzle democracy, the pressure cooker will burst.”Let us take the unprecedented January 12 press conference, where the four seniormost SC judges, led by Justice J Chelameswar, registered their dissent against CJI Dipak Misra’s manner of functioning.Why did an expression of dissent disconcert so many within the SC and take the institution threateningly close to implosion? Posterity will evaluate whether this dissent was good for democratic functioning of the institution. And, it is for the wise men in the SC to gauge whether the presser helped let out pent up steam of dissent and saved the institution from bursting. How will Justice Chandrachud, as CJI, digest a dissent press conference against him by colleague judges? Time will tell.In March 2004, Justice Arijit Pasayat had pummelled Gujarat government by likening it to “modern day Neros” for alleged machinations to derail the 2002 post-Godhra riot cases trials in the ‘Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh vs Gujarat’ judgment [2004 (4) SCC 158]. Social activist Teesta Setalvad had taken pains to help Zahira then.Less than two years later, Best Bakery case’s star witness Zahira was back in the SC accusing ‘saviour’ Setalvad of “intimidating, threatening and coercing” her to “depart from the truth and depose in a manner which did not reflect the reality”.While a Special Investigation Team probed riot cases, the then SC registrar general inquired into Zahira’s flip-flop and castigated her both for perjury and financial immorality, which became the basis for the SC to convict and sentence her to jail.During the SC-monitored probe, the SIT filed many status reports. One in 2009 contained allegations about how witnesses were ‘tutored’ by Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji and how exaggerated tales of riot survivors were circulated to make even stones weep.When TOI wrote an article based on this status report, attempts were made to discredit the news report by branding the author as a BJP stooge paid to write against a celebrated rights activist. Her sympathisers mushroomed and did a perfect dauber’s job — painting her white and the author black. Simultaneously, a long rebuttal was sent to the newspaper, which was met with point by point response quoting the SIT report.As a last salvo, Setalvad engaged senior advocate Indira Jaising to vociferously plead with an SC bench headed by Justice Pasayat to initiate contempt proceedings against the author. The argument: How can a journalist access a sealed SIT report meant only for judges? This is how those who criticise others at the drop of a hat react when they face criticism.Former Union minister P Shiv Shankar had employed vituperative language to register dissent against landmark Golaknath, Keshavananda Bharti and R C Cooper judgments. Attacking the apex court, he had said, “Anti-social elements — FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries — have formed their heaven in the SC.”In the contempt case against him — P N Duda vs P Shiv Shankar [1988 (3) SCC 167] — the SC took the minister’s dissent in its stride and termed the outburst as harmless opinion on the apex court’s endeavour to uphold rule of law.In March 2002, celebrated author Arundhati Roy was convicted for contempt for a much milder criticism of the SC. Apart from accusing the SC of being partial and biased, she had said in her affidavit, “Indicates a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it.” This charge from Roy against the SC contrasts with Justice Chandrachud’s recent outburst against the government on muzzling dissent.Last but not the least, there is loud dissent in the SC corridors about the privilege accorded to a few famous lawyers as against the rebuffs reserved for lesser minions. It is about the SC’s tradition and convention not permitting advocates to mention and seek urgent hearing of petitions before the CJI, when he is heading a constitution bench.In August 2007, a constitution bench headed by then CJI K G Balakrishnan carved out an exception for senior advocate Fali S Nariman when he mentioned and sought urgent hearing of interim bail plea for Sanjay Dutt in Mumbai serial blasts case after the trial court convicted him. The request was accepted and the plea was heard a few days later.Similar courtesy was extended to senior advocate A M Singhvi when CJI Dipak Misra, while heading a constitution bench, permitted him to mention a petition challenging arrest of five rights activists. The CJI went out of the way to list the matter same day, constituted a bench and heard it after scheduled court hours.In contrast, whenever advocate Mathews J Nedumpara attempts to mention or argue a petition, the bench’s irritation is palpable. True, he does not possess the stature or skills of renowned lawyers and may have a repetitive dissenting note to his arguments. There are many like him who are not endowed with the brilliance of successful lawyers. Their dissent needs to be addressed too. We hope they too get a patient hearing after Justice Chandrachud’s vitalising comment that dissent is intrinsic to democracy.