Back
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Punishing Students for Asking Questions , Misuse of Power
In a forceful and timely address, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has declared that threatening or punishing students for asking questions or expressing dissenting views is and a misuse of power. Speaking at the 13th convocation ceremony for postgraduate students of the , Justice Bhuyan underscored that the right to question is not an act of defiance but “an essential expression of citizenship, liberty and .”
His remarks come against the backdrop of recent controversies at leading law schools— in Hyderabad and the in Bengaluru—where students objected to the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and ) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at their convocations. The initially threatened to bar enrollment of NALSAR’s 2026 batch graduates, later withdrawing the direction after widespread backlash and a intervention. Justice Bhuyan’s address serves as a judicial reaffirmation of the constitutional protections for academic freedom and , particularly relevant for the legal community.
Background: Recent Law School Controversies
The immediate context for Justice Bhuyan’s speech lies in the student-led protests at NALSAR and NLSIU. At NALSAR, students objected to inviting Chief Justice Surya Kant, citing his remarks on student protest violence. The responded by directing state bar councils not to enroll the graduating batch of 2026 pending an inquiry. The move sparked outrage, with the itself questioning the ’s action and directing that no punitive steps be taken against students or faculty. The subsequently withdrew its letter.
At NLSIU, outgoing students similarly objected to the participation of the CJI and the chairman at its 2026 convocation. NLSIU cancelled the convocation, citing “unavoidable circumstances,” and awarded degrees in absentia. These episodes raised critical questions about the boundaries of student , the role of regulatory bodies, and the that underpin legal education.
Against this charged atmosphere, Justice Bhuyan’s address at NLU Delhi offered a principled defense of intellectual freedom in universities.
Justice Bhuyan’s Key Remarks
“When students express a different point of view, when students ask questions, they cannot be threatened with punitive action. That is . That is a ,” Justice Bhuyan asserted. He stressed that a university must be a space where “established positions can be examined and questioned,” and where disagreements are resolved through reason rather than hostility.
The judge emphasized that is a constitutional value, not merely a social virtue. “An intolerant mind, by its very nature, is at odds with the spirit of the . It is a manifestation of another form of violence,” he said, invoking India’s heritage as the land of Buddha and Gandhi. He reminded the audience that the does not seek uniformity of thought but creates a framework where people with different beliefs can live with equal dignity.
Justice Bhuyan also highlighted the role of universities in nurturing democratic citizenship: “If we want a democratic society that respects liberty and difference, that culture has to begin from the universities.” He urged that students should not hesitate to ask difficult questions, even if the answers are uncomfortable.
Constitutional Analysis: and
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks draw heavily on the core principles of Part III of the , particularly , which guarantees . The judge’s statement that “the freedom to express an opinion, to disagree with the prevailing view and to participate in public life would be meaningful only when there is space for ” echoes the ’s consistent interpretation of the right to as integral to democracy.
The ’s initial threat to deny enrollment to NALSAR graduates for exercising their right to protest squarely implicates the and the prohibition on . The ’s swift intervention and Justice Bhuyan’s extra-judicial comments reinforce the message that regulatory bodies must not use their powers to stifle . The judge’s observation that intolerance “begins to undermine that framework when disagreement or is no longer treated as a legitimate difference of opinion, but as something that must be silenced, rejected or punished” is a direct critique of such overreach.
Impact on Legal Education and the Profession
For legal professionals and scholars, Justice Bhuyan’s address carries significant implications. He reminded the graduating students that “the role of a legal professional or legal academic is not simply to know what the law says, but to understand the values that give the law its legitimacy.” Liberty, equality, dignity, and justice are not abstract words; they must remain at the core of legal understanding, even in moments of disagreement or conflict.
This perspective challenges law schools and bar councils to foster environments where questioning is encouraged rather than stifled. The controversy also underscores the need for clear guidelines on the exercise of regulatory powers by bodies like the . When a statutory body threatens to bar graduates from the profession for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, it raises serious concerns about the erosion of .
Conclusion
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s convocation address is both a timely warning and a reaffirmation of . In a democracy, the right to question is the bedrock of citizenship. Universities must remain bastions of free thought, and any attempt to punish students for exercising that right is antithetical to the spirit of the . As the legal community grapples with the aftermath of the NALSAR and NLSIU episodes, Justice Bhuyan’s words will likely resonate in ongoing debates about academic freedom, the limits of regulatory power, and the enduring importance of in a liberal constitutional order.
