Bhopal, July 26 -- Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday voiced concern over what he described as the shrinking space for dissent in India, questioning arrests over peaceful activities, restrictive bail conditions, and judicial approaches that could discourage citizens from exercising their constitutional freedoms. Speaking at the Justice GP Singh 4th Memorial Lecture at the National Law Institute University (NLIU) in Bhopal, Justice Bhuyan said courts have a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens and called for greater introspection within the judiciary to retain public trust.
Referring to recent instances involving criminal action against people exercising their right to protest or express opinions, Justice Bhuyan said there was growing concern over "normal activities" being treated as criminal offences.
"It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one's views and the right to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised," he said.
Justice Bhuyan cited the case of 14 Muslim men who were arrested after consuming chicken biryani while breaking their Ramzan fast on a boat in the Ganga. The group remained in jail for nearly three months before obtaining relief.
"I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga River. They were arrested for that very reason and they had to remain in jail for three months. Can people be arrested and denied bail for three months for such an activity? I ask myself. Citizens are watching; people are watching," he said.
According to Justice Bhuyan, such incidents raise broader questions about the criminal justice system's response to peaceful conduct. While courts often grant bail in these cases, he said the relief frequently comes after considerable delay.
He also questioned the conditions imposed while granting bail, saying they could discourage citizens from exercising their democratic rights. Referring to cases where accused persons were barred from attending public meetings, posting on social media or leaving the country, Justice Bhuyan asked whether such restrictions indirectly discouraged people from expressing dissent.
"These issues raise serious questions. Citizens are finding that though the courts are responsive and do grant bail, do grant relief, many a times it is belated. But it is the restrictive conditions which are imposed while granting bail that are causing the greatest concern. By such restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens not to express their dissent?" he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to a July 2025 Bombay High Court order that rejected a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking permission to hold a demonstration at Mumbai's Azad Maidan against the alleged genocide in Gaza.
Recalling the observations made during the hearing, he said he found it "very amusing" that a judge questioned why citizens wished to protest over an international humanitarian issue. The High Court had remarked that India had enough domestic issues to address and suggested that protesting over Gaza was not an act of patriotism.
Turning to the role of the judiciary, Justice Bhuyan said judges and courts were not beyond public scrutiny. He encouraged students, lawyers and the legal fraternity to critically analyse judicial decisions, saying criticism of a judgment should not be seen as criticism of the judge who delivered it.
"Judgments, after being delivered, are required to be critically examined and criticised if necessary. Criticism of a judgment does not amount to criticism of a judge," he said.
Referring to important Supreme Court rulings, including the judgment on reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Justice Bhuyan urged law students not to accept court decisions without examination.
"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.
Justice Bhuyan concluded by saying that the judiciary's legitimacy depends on public confidence rather than self-praise. He said judges must constantly introspect if they wish to remain relevant and trusted, adding that it is ultimately citizens, not judges themselves, who determine the standing of the Supreme Court and the judiciary in a democratic society.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.