Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah said although there was undoubtedly value in unanimous opinions, it was critical that judges spoke in dissent where necessary.
He said some judges may hold strong legal and moral convictions, yet failed to articulate their concerns in their judgments.
“Sometimes the brave dissenting voice is transformed into law,” he said at the book launch of “Justice above all: Selected judgments of Tun Arifin Zakaria with commentaries” at a hotel here today.
He cited a classic US case from 1954 of Brown versus Board of Education where the Supreme Court gave weight to the spirit of a Justice Harlan’s dissenting voice in the case of Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896.
As a result, in a historic judgement then Chief Justice Warren held that racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the US constitutional guarantee of equality of rights.
Sultan Nazrin also pointed out Lord Atkin’s famous dissent in Liversidge versus Anderson in 1942 and Lord Denning’s dissenting judgment in Candler versus Crane, Christmas in 1951, both of which had far-reaching consequences on the landscape of the law in later years.
He said judges also shoulder a heavy responsibility in discharging their duty to uphold the rule of law.
“It is by their judgments that judges are made accountable for the decisions they have made. It goes without saying that they should be free to express their reasons as they think fit,” he said.
The son of former Perak ruler and ex-Lord President Azlan Shah, Sultan Nazrin said for the rule of law to flourish, courts and their participants should be allowed to express a variety of ideas and principles.
“Every judge should have the opportunity to participate fully, even while the majority decision rules the outcome. This judicial independence in turn helps to ensure that the rule of law is fully upheld,” he said.
Sultan Nazrin said it was this adherence to the rule of law that should be the compass and leitmotif of all judges in the adjudication of cases before them, no matter what the issues were and no matter whose interests they were deciding.
“This ensures that justice will always prevail,” he added.
He said the character, qualities and independence of the judges themselves also served to sustain public confidence in the court.
He called on judges to decide cases in the true spirit of justice and fairness. “Doing the right thing is therefore incumbent on all judges. In fact, it is their supreme duty,” he said.
He said Malaysians lived in challenging times, in which “our institutions sometimes seem to be under threat.” and this made it all the more crucial that the public’s regard for the judiciary should be at its highest and clearest.
“More than ever, we need courageous and fair-minded judges to instil confidence that the judicial system remains sacrosanct in guarding the rights, interests and liberty of all,” he added.
He said dispensing justice in accordance with the rule of law was an essential prerequisite for safeguarding civil and political rights, ensuring good governance and the foundation for economic growth and progress.
He said a well-functioning judicial system helped promote a competitive and attractive economic climate in the country when fair and prompt judicial decisions on matters concerning the enforcement of commercial rights were made.