Speaking at the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar on the theme of Dr B R Ambedkar’s Constitutional Vision and Legacy for the 'We the People' lecture series, Justice Bhuyan referred to the petition seeking a to-be-released film 'Ghuskhor Pandat' to be banned as it “castigated the Brahmin community.”Refering to recent incidents where a film’s title appeared to cast aspersions on a community and a social media post where a Chief Minister was purportedly shown as targeting a particular community, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said on Saturday that in the Indian constitutional context it was not open to any one, especially a public representative “to target any particular community”.Speaking at the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar on the theme of Dr B R Ambedkar’s Constitutional Vision and Legacy for the ‘We the People’ lecture series, Justice Bhuyan referred to the petition seeking a to-be-released film ‘Ghuskhor Pandat’ to be banned as it “castigated the Brahmin community.”Justice Bhuyan said that had he been the only judge, he would have “dismissed the petition straightaway”. Eventually the producers themselves filed an affidavit before the court saying they were willing to withdraw the title of the movie.“Somehow I was not happy. So I had written a concurring opinion, which some people say virtually amounts to a dissent in a decent language,” said Justice Bhuyan referring to the order of February 19, 2026, in the case Atul Mishra vs Union of India.“In the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes a dynamic and inclusive role aligning with the broader goals of social justice, equality and upliftment, thus cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma of each citizen of India. And I also said that it is not open to anyone, more so a public representative, to target any particular community,” said Justice Bhuyan.He then went on to refer to petitions filed before the apex court seeking an FIR against Assam Chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.“A writ petition was filed by certain well-meaning petitioners before the Supreme Court saying that the Assam CM had posted a meme on the social media where he was targeting…shown shooting at some people wearing a particular dress with the caption, ‘No mercy’. Of course, the Supreme Court said you go to the High Court. In the High Court, all the three lawyers representing the petitioners referred to this judgment and the High Court had issued notice to the CM as well as to the state government as to why action should not be taken”, said Justice Bhuyan. He was referring to a video posted from the Assam BJP unit’s official X handle in February showing an image of Sarma purportedly aiming a gun at two men in skullcaps. The video led to a backlash from across the political spectrum and was deleted the next day.Justice Bhuyan questioned if the jurisprudence of fraternity be applied only for maintenance of the societal status quo.Story continues below this ad“Should the doctrine of fraternity be invoked to perpetuate the dominance of the dominant? That’s the question. Would it not go against the very grain of what Dr. Ambedkar stood for and which finds its expression in our constitutional philosophy?”, the judge said.Justice Bhuyan also called for a “course correction” to increase the representation of women from the ‘marginalised communities in the judiciary.”He noted that more representation of women from the marginalised communities would lead to the democratisation of the judicial space and making the justice system more open’.Justice Bhuyan said he had a different view with that of Former Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud, who when asked about the poor representation of women said that in the years to come there would be more women coming into the High Courts but according to him it won’t translate into more women judges. Justice Bhuyan said that to rectify the situation the ‘mostly male-dominated collegium system’ should have a women judge as a ‘special invitee’. “ So that we have a women’s perspective also. Let us see what happens (then). As of today, the situation is not very happy. A similar position is in the bar also. As per the Bar Council of India statistics, the number of women advocates is hovering around three lakh. However, only a few women advocates have been designated as senior advocates. This also needs to stop.”Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:supreme court