Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India delivered a powerful call to action at the 12th convocation of the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, last Saturday, asserting that the survival of the rule of law depends heavily on the collective cultivation of a scientific temperament. Addressing a gathering of 1,469 graduating scholars, including 42 PhD recipients, the judge argued that when a society abandons rational inquiry in favor of unexamined beliefs, it inadvertently clears a path for authoritarian forces to consolidate power.

For the legal professional and the academic alike, the address served as a reminder that the constitutional project in India is not merely an institutional structure but a continuous, participatory process. Justice Bhuyan emphasized that scientific temper is not limited to laboratory work; rather, it is a fundamental duty of every citizen, as enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution. By advocating for a society that demands evidence-based claims and encourages rigorous questioning, the Justice suggested that the legal community must act as a vanguard against the rising tides of misinformation and superstitious governance that threaten the stability of democratic institutions.

The Intersection of Reasoning and Legal Integrity

The central premise of Justice Bhuyan’s address was that science and law share a common ancestry in the art of reasoning. Just as scientific discovery requires evidence and the courage to challenge established but faulty paradigms, the practice of law is fundamentally anchored in the evidentiary process. The Judge noted, “Scientific temperament lays the foundation for the rule of law. This is because arbitrary power thrives on ignorance, fear and unexamined belief.”

This link is particularly critical for the modern legal practitioner. When tradition is shielded from scrutiny, it becomes an instrument for maintaining unjust practices that contradict the modern, egalitarian vision of the Indian republic. By framing scientific temperament as a tool for reform, Justice Bhuyan underscored that the duty to question is essential for correcting societal imbalances. In his view, the failure to apply rational inquiry results in a vulnerability to authoritarianism, where decisions are made through decree rather than through public discourse or legal process. For the judiciary and the bar, this necessitates a commitment to transparency and the rejection of dogmatic adherence to practices that no longer serve the interests of a diverse and evolving constitutional order.

Moving Beyond the Divisive Binary

Justice Bhuyan also addressed the sociopolitical challenges facing the nation, specifically critiquing the "binary of 'us' and 'they'" that frequently dominates public discourse. He urged the graduates—the future architects of the legal and social framework—to move toward the more inclusive, constitutional concept of "We, the People of India." This shift in narrative is not just a semantic exercise but a requirement for a functioning, participatory democracy.

Drawing on the concept of fraternity as emphasized by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Justice articulated that the strength of the Indian republic lies in its inherent diversity. He cautioned against the temptation of exclusion, noting that society often falls into the trap of isolation due to competing claims and societal conflicts. By embracing the diversity of backgrounds, faiths, languages, and ethnic identities found within university spaces, citizens learn the habit of unlearning prejudices and discovering shared values. This process, he argued, transforms a heterogeneous population into a unified, accommodative society without demanding the erasure of individual or group identities. For legal professionals operating in a complex, multi-layered society, this perspective serves as a crucial guide for interpreting rights and duties in a way that promotes cohesion rather than fragmentation.

Public Reasoning as a Democratic Safeguard

The address culminated in a strong endorsement of public reasoning, which Justice Bhuyan described as the "very essence of a healthy participatory democracy." Citing Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen’s 2009 work, The Idea of Justice , the judge distinguished between the mere existence of institutions and the functional reality of a democracy. He contended that democratic institutions are rendered hollow if the public lacks the capacity or the freedom to engage in informed reasoning.

The practical consequence of this perspective is the necessity for an informed citizenry. Access to information, according to Justice Bhuyan, is the key that unlocks the potential of the constitutional order. Without the circulation of information, the public’s ability to participate in the scrutiny of power—a vital component of due process—is severely diminished. For those engaged in the legal field, this signals a continuing requirement for advocacy that supports access to information and protects the spaces where public discourse thrives.

As the ceremony concluded, the message was clear: the university serves as the primary incubator for these values, teaching students to navigate differences and respect views contrary to their own. The responsibility now rests with the graduating cohort to carry these principles into their professional and public lives. Whether in the courtroom or the classroom, the commitment to questioning tradition, demanding evidence, and fostering inclusivity remains the most effective defense against the drift toward authoritarian governance and the erosion of the rule of law. The event concluded with the conferment of degrees, marking a milestone for the institution and a challenge to its alumni to integrate these constitutional ideals into their future endeavors.