When Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Holds Court, Outside the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has been drawing attention through a series of candid speeches at legal and academic gatherings, where he has spoken about voting rights, judicial independence, freedom of dissent, discrimination and constitutional morality.

Three years after joining the Supreme Court, Justice Bhuyan has increasingly used public platforms, including memorial lectures and university events, to discuss issues that are also part of wider constitutional and legal debates in India.

His remarks have attracted attention not only for their substance but also because some relate to matters that are pending before courts, raising questions about the conventions governing public comments by sitting judges.

Voting Rights and the Special Intensive Revision

One of Justice Bhuyan's most closely discussed interventions concerned voting rights and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

On October 4, while addressing the valedictory ceremony of the Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial moot court competition at NALSAR, he criticised processes that could result in large numbers of eligible citizens losing their voting rights.

He described the disenfranchisement of citizens as intrinsically arbitrary and argued that such a process could not be justified through political arguments.

His remarks came while the Supreme Court was dealing with petitions concerning the Election Commission of India's SIR exercise. The process has faced allegations of the exclusion of eligible voters, particularly in West Bengal, where cases have also been pending before tribunals established to examine voter-related claims.

The comments drew a response from former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, who said that a sitting Supreme Court judge should not make statements on an issue pending adjudication before the same court.

Questions Over Judicial Appointments and Collegium Transparency

Justice Bhuyan has also spoken about the relationship between the government and the judiciary, particularly concerning judicial transfers and appointments.

At the Principal G V Pandit Memorial Lecture at ILS Law College in Pune on January 24, he questioned the government's role in the transfer process. Referring to a Collegium recommendation that recorded a transfer as being made at the Central government's request, he described the development as a striking intrusion.

In August, while speaking at the launch of the Judicial Transparency Index Report, he criticised the Collegium's practice of not providing reasons for its decisions.

He argued that a lack of transparency prevents the public from scrutinising judicial appointments and may create room for candidates whose views are inconsistent with constitutional values.

Justice Bhuyan also questioned the practice of former judges accepting political positions after retirement, referring to the appointment of former Chief Justice of India Rajan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha.

Freedom of Dissent and the Use of Criminal Law

Freedom of expression and peaceful dissent have been recurring themes in Justice Bhuyan's public addresses.

In April, during an event at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal, he commented on the arrest of 14 Muslim youths in Varanasi following an iftar gathering on a boat on the Ganga. The youths had been accused of consuming chicken biryani and throwing leftovers into the river.

Justice Bhuyan questioned the basis for their arrest and observed that consuming chicken biryani was not an offence. He also warned that restrictive bail conditions could discourage people from exercising their right to dissent.

During the same address, he criticised the Bombay High Court's refusal to permit a protest in solidarity with Palestine at Mumbai's Shivaji Park.

At the National Law University Delhi convocation in August, he further emphasised that students should not face punitive action for expressing their views. He described the right to question as an essential part of citizenship, liberty and constitutional responsibility.

Constitutional Morality and Social Discrimination

Justice Bhuyan has also highlighted the gap between constitutional guarantees and discrimination in everyday life.

At a seminar in February, he spoke about incidents involving religious and caste-based discrimination. He referred to his daughter's Muslim friend being denied accommodation in Delhi because of her religion, as well as objections raised by parents at a school in Odisha over food prepared by a Dalit woman under the midday meal scheme.

He described these incidents as indications of deeper social divisions and argued that constitutional morality remained an unfinished goal even decades after Independence.

Education, Independent Thinking and Scientific Temper

On October 31, at the 12th convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya, Justice Bhuyan stressed the importance of education in developing independent thinking, intellectual curiosity and the ability to question established beliefs.

He said that a society which fears questions becomes vulnerable to authoritarianism.

He also raised concerns about the representation of women in the Supreme Court. Pointing out that only three of the Court's 35 judges were women at the time, he said the composition did not reflect the proportion of women in the legal profession or the wider population. He suggested that women judges should be invited to participate in the Collegium.

His remarks at the university also addressed scientific temper, rational thinking and the role of educational institutions in strengthening democratic values.

The Debate Over Public Statements by Sitting Judges

The public interventions have brought renewed attention to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court in May 1997.

Its provisions state that judges should avoid expressing public views on political matters or issues pending or likely to come before courts. They also emphasise that judicial decisions should speak for themselves.

Justice Bhuyan's speeches have therefore prompted discussion about the balance between a judge's constitutional responsibility to engage with public issues and the need to maintain judicial restraint and institutional impartiality.

The debate is particularly significant when a judge speaks about subjects that are also being examined in ongoing legal proceedings.

A Wider Conversation on Constitutional Values

Across his speeches, Justice Bhuyan has repeatedly returned to themes of equality, transparency, freedom of expression, judicial independence and constitutional morality.

His comments have generated discussion among legal observers and former judicial officials about the appropriate boundaries of public engagement by serving judges.

As these debates continue, the central question remains how the judiciary can encourage constitutional awareness and public reasoning while preserving the restraint and impartiality expected of its members.