Speaking at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal on Saturday, Justice Bhuyan said the right to express views and demonstrate peacefully formed part of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens. Debate and dissent, he said, remained central to a functioning democracy, yet activities that should ordinarily be protected were increasingly being treated as criminal conduct.
The judge pointed to campus protests in which students were arrested, suspended from their institutions and kept in custody for weeks before securing bail. Even after release, he said, courts sometimes imposed conditions that substantially curtailed their liberty, including restrictions on attending public meetings, using social media or travelling.
His remarks placed judicial handling of bail at the centre of the wider debate over civil liberties. Justice Bhuyan said relief often arrived after the accused had already spent 30 or 40 days in custody, creating consequences that could not be reversed by a later order. Students could lose academic time, face disciplinary action and suffer reputational damage even when the alleged conduct involved peaceful protest.
Justice Bhuyan was delivering the fourth Justice G P Singh Memorial Lecture at the university. He avoided commenting directly on ongoing political developments but used past cases to illustrate how lawful or ordinary behaviour could become the basis for criminal proceedings.
One example involved a group of Muslim men arrested after eating chicken biryani during an iftar gathering on a boat on the Ganga in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Bhuyan questioned the legal foundation for treating the meal as an offence and noted that the accused remained in jail for about three months.
“There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river,” he said, arguing that courts must closely examine whether criminal provisions are being invoked against conduct that does not constitute an offence.
The case reflected his broader concern that the process of arrest and detention can itself become a punishment. Bail jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasised personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, but lengthy proceedings and restrictive statutory provisions can leave accused people incarcerated before guilt has been established.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to a Bombay High Court decision involving a proposed demonstration expressing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. The court had refused permission for the march and questioned why citizens should protest over developments outside the country, while invoking patriotism and the need to focus on domestic issues.
He expressed surprise at that reasoning, noting that India recognises Palestine and maintains diplomatic relations with it. Citizens, he said, could not be prevented from peacefully expressing concern about an international conflict merely because it occurred beyond the country’s borders.
The judge’s intervention added to his established position that disagreement with the government or prevailing public opinion should not automatically attract criminal prosecution. At a legal conference in Bengaluru in March, he had called for greater tolerance of divergent views and warned against criminalising dissent in the name of national development.
Constitutional protections for speech and peaceful assembly are subject to reasonable restrictions relating to public order, security and other defined grounds. The central dispute in many protest cases, however, is whether authorities apply those restrictions proportionately or rely on broadly framed allegations to prevent mobilisation.
Arrest also carries particularly serious implications for students. Apart from incarceration, they can face suspension, disruption of examinations, loss of scholarships and disciplinary inquiries. Challenging those measures requires separate proceedings, increasing the financial and emotional burden on young people and their families.
Justice Bhuyan said people raising concerns about environmental damage had also been driven away as though they were criminals. His comments suggested that the shrinking space for dissent extended beyond party politics to campus rights, ecological campaigns, international solidarity and other forms of civic participation.
He also questioned bail conditions that continue to control an accused person’s public life after release. Conditions intended to secure attendance at trial or prevent interference with evidence should not, he indicated, become instruments for suppressing speech, association or movement unrelated to the alleged offence.
(IPA Service)
