Our Constitution-makers, in their wisdom, did not choose to adopt for our Supreme Court the Privy Council system of delivering one single authoritative pronouncement on behalf of the Court. In justification of dissenting judgments it is said that law is a progressive concept and dissenting judgments are essential for the proper growth of law as what appeals only to a minority of Judges today might appeal to the majority tomorrow and that therefore dissentient views must be preserved for posterity. That there is a large measure of truth in this cannot be gainsaid and naturally those who plead for the adoption of the Privy Council system have not succeeded since their main ground of attack against dissenting judgments is that, in the highest Court of the country, they tend to detract from the dignity of the Court. White thus the role of the dissenting judgment in a system of evolving jurisprudence cannot be under-estimated, much cannot be said in favour of separate concurring ....