Back
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Warns That Public Space For Dissent In India Is Shrinking
In a striking address delivered at the in Bhopal, of India Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has sounded a grave alarm regarding the erosion of for dissent within the country. Speaking at the 4th Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture, Justice Bhuyan articulated a pointed critique of the increasing tendency to and the imposition of that, he argued, effectively function as a form of .
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks come at a time of heightened debate concerning the delicate equilibrium between the maintenance of and the preservation of . His address served not merely as a scholarly reflection on , but as a direct challenge to the current pulse of the Indian ’s response to .
The Criminalization of Everyday Life
Central to Justice Bhuyan’s address was the observation that the is increasingly treating "normal activities" as criminal offences. To illustrate the absurdity of some of these instances, the judge recounted the case of 14 individuals who were arrested after consuming chicken biryani while breaking their Ramadan fast on a boat in the Ganga River.
"I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river,"
Justice Bhuyan remarked. The fact that these individuals were detained for approximately three months before obtaining relief from the courts served as a potent example for the judge to question the
of state responses.
Beyond this, he highlighted the plight of environmental campaigners and students who, in his view, are treated as threats to merely for voicing their concerns or conducting peaceful protests. The recurring theme in his address was that these individuals are often denied bail for weeks at a time, leading to subsequent academic or professional suspensions and a cycle of protracted legal litigation that acts as an enduring penalty regardless of the case’s ultimate outcome.
Judicial Attitudes Toward Global Solidarity
Justice Bhuyan also extended his critique toward the judiciary itself, specifically addressing instances where courts have shown skepticism toward protests concerning international humanitarian issues. He referenced a order from the , which had declined to intervene in a matter where the sought permission to demonstrate in solidarity with the people of Gaza.
The judge expressed his amusement—and underlying concern—at the reasoning employed by a lower judicial authority, which had questioned why citizens would wish to advocate for international matters when there are pressing domestic issues to resolve. By dismissing the protests as non-patriotic, the judge argued that the court failed to appreciate the role of citizens in a globalized democracy and the importance of academic and ethical engagement with world affairs.
The Chilling Effect of
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the lecture for the legal fraternity was Justice Bhuyan’s dissection of modern bail practices. While the and lesser courts frequently grant bail, the justice noted that the conditions often attached to these orders are arguably more damaging to civil liberties than the initial detention.
"For putting a post on Facebook commenting on the conduct of a minister... an
is lodged, and he has to seek
. Bail is granted but what does the Court do? [Asking them to] deposit your passport [when] he is not even on a
. [Then it says] don't post anything on Facebook."
Justice Bhuyan argued that such conditions—specifically those that prohibit the accused from speaking at public meetings, posting on social media, or traveling—constitute an indirect form of censorship. By leveraging the threat of incarceration to ensure compliance with these restrictive behaviors, the courts are ironically enabling the very shrinkage of the public sphere they are constitutionally mandated to protect.
A Call for Institutional Introspection
Justice Bhuyan did not exempt his own institution from scrutiny. He urged law students and the wider legal profession to cultivate a spirit of inquiry rather than one of conformity. He emphasized that the legitimacy of the judiciary is not derived from self-praise or the expectation of unquestioning acceptance, but from the level of public confidence it garners through its adherence to .
He discouraged the practice of viewing every
as sacrosanct. On the contrary, he argued that robust criticism of judgments is an essential component of a healthy democratic system.
"If everybody goes and tells the judges, ‘Sir, wonderful thing. Sir, what you say is excellent. Sir, you are a jurist,’ then how will the system improve?"
he asked the assembly.
The Path Forward for the Justice System
The implications of the judge’s remarks for legal practice are profound. As legal professionals continue to navigate an environment where dissent is increasingly funneled through the lens of criminal law—under provisions such as those governing or —the role of the defense bar becomes increasingly critical in challenging overbroad bail conditions at the outset.
The judiciary, meanwhile, faces an introspective challenge: how to decouple the protection of from the limitation of the . Justice Bhuyan’s lecture serves as a timely reminder that the strength of a nation’s democracy is measured not by the uniformity of its public discourse, but by its capacity to accommodate and protect even the most uncomfortable expressions of dissent. As the judiciary continues to be the final arbiter of these freedoms, the message from the indicates that the process of defending liberty must begin with acknowledging the shrinking space in which it currently resides.
In conclusion, the discourse initiated by the judge highlights a need for a shift in judicial policy, moving away from restrictive pretrial conditions and toward a more rigorous defense of the right to express divergent views. The health of the constitutional order, he suggests, depends entirely on the courts recognizing their role not as regulators of behavior, but as guardians of the fundamental freedoms upon which the entire democratic framework is built.
