Judge Criticises Judiciary Over Free Speech

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticized the judiciary for its handling of petitions related to dissent and protest, saying that citizens are increasingly facing criminal action for exercising their right to protest. He noted that while courts are granting relief in many cases, it often comes belatedly, and restrictive bail conditions risk discouraging legitimate dissent.

Justice Bhuyan made these comments while addressing students at the Justice GP Singh 4th Memorial Lecture at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal. He emphasized that the right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of citizens, and that debate and dissent are the essence of democracy.

Public space for expressing divergent opinions is shrinking in India, and even normal activities are being criminalized. Justice Bhuyan cited the example of a group of youngsters who were arrested for consuming chicken biryani while breaking their Ramzan fast in a boat on the Ganga river.

Justice Bhuyan said, “I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. It can’t be an offence. There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river.” He noted that the youngsters had to remain in jail for three months, highlighting the need for courts to be more responsive to citizens’ rights.

They also referred to cases where individuals granted bail were directed not to attend public meetings, post on social media, or leave the country. Such conditions undermine fundamental freedoms and can discourage citizens from expressing their dissent.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) had filed a petition seeking permission for a protest at Azad Maidan against the alleged genocide in Gaza, but the Bombay High Court dismissed it. The High Court had remarked that the country has enough issues and that the petitioners should focus on domestic problems rather than international ones.

Related: Netflix and Disney+ Push Against French Streaming Quotas

Justice Bhuyan found it “very amusing” that a judge had questioned why people wished to protest over events outside India. He emphasized that the judiciary is not above criticism and that judgments should be critically examined by the legal fraternity.

Justice Bhuyan urged students to critically analyze judgments rather than accept them unquestioningly. He said that criticism of a judgment does not amount to criticism of a judge, and that robust public debate, including criticism of the judiciary, would only strengthen democratic institutions.

In situations like these, the judiciary has faced criticism for its handling of cases related to public dissent. Justice Bhuyan’s comments come at a time when the judiciary is facing increasing scrutiny over its handling of cases related to dissent and protest.

The Supreme Court has granted relief in many cases, but Justice Bhuyan’s comments highlight the need for the judiciary to be more proactive in protecting citizens’ rights. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, and it is the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold this right.

Justice Bhuyan’s remarks are significant.