Judge Bhuyan Defends Right to Dissent for Inclusive Nation

In a compelling address at the valedictory session of the 8th Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition at the Indore Institute of Law , Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a potent reminder of the constitutional imperatives governing modern Indian democracy. Highlighting the critical link between tolerance, fraternity , and the right to dissent, Justice Bhuyan argued that an intolerant society is inherently incompatible with the goals of a progressive and inclusive nation. His remarks, which spanned from constitutional theory to the lived realities of the marginalized, served as a rallying cry for the legal fraternity to protect the sanctity of diverse viewpoints against the rising tide of ideological dogmatism.

The Constitutional Mandate of Fraternity

Justice Bhuyan grounded his argument firmly within the text of the Constitution of India . By invoking the Preamble , he shifted the focus from static legalism to the aspirational values that define the Indian state. The Preamble , he reminded his audience, resolves to secure to all citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship . For Justice Bhuyan, these are not merely abstract concepts; they are the pillars upon which the nation must be built.

"When we talk about fraternity , there naturally comes the question of tolerance, dissent and respect for differing viewpoints," the Justice noted. He referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, who warned that in the absence of fraternity , liberty risked becoming an exercise in the supremacy of a few over the many. This insight serves as a vital safeguard: without a collective sense of brotherhood, the liberties guaranteed to citizens risk being co-opted by those in power to silence those who challenge them.

Dissent as a Vehicle for Social Transformation

A significant portion of Justice Bhuyan’s address focused on the historical utility of free speech . Far from being a mere individual right, he framed free expression as an instrument for social transformation . Whether citing the American civil rights movement or domestic struggles for dignity and equality, Justice Bhuyan posited that " free speech and expression have often become instruments for social transformation ."

He highlighted how marginalized groups have used these tools to participate in shaping constitutional culture , forcing the state and broader society to contend with their realities. The Justice emphasized that disagreement over beliefs and ideology should never be grounds for suppression, as intolerance often stems from a dogmatic conviction of one's own superiority. When intolerance reigns, he observed, "reason takes a back seat," rendering a society incapable of progress or genuine inclusivity.

Lessons from the Bench: Atul Mishra v. Union of India

Justice Bhuyan also walked the audience through his own judicial reasoning, referencing his concurring opinion in Atul Mishra v. Union of India . The case, which centered on the title of a Netflix film, Ghooskhor Pandat , provided a practical example of where the courts must draw the line between creative expression and the denigration of a community.

In his observation in that case, the Justice concluded that it is constitutionally impermissible for state or non-state actors to vilify or denigrate any community through various mediums, be it speech, memes, cartoons, or visual art. However, he balanced this against the need for open discourse, noting that while dignity must be protected, the law must not be used as a blunt instrument to stifle dissent. The resolution of the Atul Mishra case—where the filmmakers agreed to change the title—underscored his belief that dialogue, rather than outright prohibition, can often satisfy the requirements of constitutional dignity .

Protecting the 'Constitutional Losers'

Perhaps the most significant takeaway from Justice Bhuyan’s address was his call for the legal fraternity to shift its perspective on what justice achieves. He urged judges and lawyers to consider constitutionalism not from the perspective of "winners," but from that of "constitutional losers." This approach posits that the true measure of constitutional efficacy lies in the lived experiences of those who remain marginalized, unheard, and vulnerable to coercive state and non-state actors.

"Perhaps that is why human rights can be meaningful only when human suffering is taken seriously," he remarked. This philosophical framing challenges the legal profession to look beyond the interests of the powerful and established. It suggests that the primary duty of an advocate, a judge, or a scholar is to ensure that the constitutional framework serves as a shield for the disempowered, particularly those targeted by fanatical, intolerant groups.

Implications for Legal Practice and the Justice System

The impact of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on legal practice is profound. In an era often characterized by polarized discourse and the weaponization of legal mechanisms to suppress opposition, his words serve as a corrective. For the legal profession, this necessitates a renewed commitment to advocacy that values procedural fairness and substantive inclusivity .

For the justice system, it poses a challenge: courts must be vigilant against the " chilling effect " that can be produced by fear or state-led coercion. By reinforcing that dissent must not be penalized, Justice Bhuyan is signaling to his colleagues on the bench that the courts must remain the ultimate protectors of the free intellectual and ideological space that sustains a democracy. The message is clear: the law is not just a mechanism for settling disputes, but a constant teacher of how to engage with differing viewpoints.

Conclusion

As the legal landscape continues to evolve in response to social pressures, the insights provided by Justice Bhuyan at the Indore Institute of Law remain a critical reference point. His emphasis on tolerance as a constitutional requirement rather than a social courtesy provides a framework for future litigation and academic discussion. By advocating for a legal consciousness that prioritizes the, "marginalized and the excluded," Justice Bhuyan has reminded the legal professional that the ultimate test of the constitution is not in its letter, but in its ability to protect the most vulnerable in the face of intolerance. In the pursuit of an egalitarian society , the space for dissent must remain uninterrupted, for as the Justice aptly noted, "an intolerant society can never be a progressive, inclusive society."