Voting rights and peaceful dissent, to judicial appointments and discrimination – Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has been speaking his mind, in candour unusual for a sitting Supreme Court judge.Three years after he joined the apex court, Justice Bhuyan has been holding forth on these and other contentious issues at legal and academic forums, especially weekend memorial lectures, for the past few months.Also read | Detained over a day without court date? Supreme Court says ‘must be released’On Saturday October 31, addressing the 12th convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), he said education should cultivate independent thinking, intellectual curiosity and the ability to question beliefs. “A society that fears questions becomes vulnerable to authoritarianism.”USTM and its Chancellor Mahbubul Hoque have been in the crosshairs of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, with the BJP leader accusing the university of “flood jihad”, as in deliberately causing flooding of Guwahati, among other allegations.During the USTM speech, Justice Bhuyan also remarked upon the “male-dominated” Supreme Court, with only three of the 35 Supreme Court judges being women, and said women judges should be invited to be part of the Collegium. The strength of the women in the Court “does not reflect the real proportion of women lawyers or women in the country”, he said.Judges are guided by ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, which was adopted by the Supreme Court in May 1997. Clause 8 states that a judge should not “express views in public on political matters” or on matters that are pending or likely to come up in court. Clause 9 says a judge’s judgments should speak for themselves and that a judge should not give interviews to the media.Several of Justice Bhuyan’s speeches were read in the context of cases being heard in courts, making his interventions particularly notable.Story continues below this adJustice Bhuyan is expected to retire from the Supreme Court in August 2029, and is not in line to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI).Voting rightsOn October 4, speaking at the valedictory ceremony of the Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial moot court competition at NALSAR, Justice Bhuyan said the process of “disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens, making them second-class citizens in their own country, in the sense of being citizens without voting rights, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it.”The Supreme Court is in the process of hearing several petitions over the Election Commission of India’s contentious Special Intensive Revision exercise, which has seen allegations of deliberate exclusion of eligible voters. In West Bengal in particular, the process continues a year after it started, with cases of voters hanging fire in judicial tribunals, which were set up to consider their cases, in an unprecedented measure.Justice Bhuyan’s remarks drew sharp reactions regarding the limits of public commentary by judges. Former CJI B R Gavai told PTI that a sitting judge of the Supreme Court should not make statements on an issue which is pending adjudication before the same court.Story continues below this adJudicial independence and the CollegiumSpeaking at the Principal G V Pandit Memorial Lecture at ILS Law College in Pune on January 24, Justice Bhuyan commented on the government’s role in judicial transfers. “When the Collegium itself records that a transfer is being made at the request of the Central government, it reveals a striking intrusion,” he said.This was three months after the Supreme Court Collegium changed its recommendation to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court, instead shifting him to the Allahabad High Court. The Collegium mentioned that the change was made on “reconsideration sought by the government”.Justice Bhuyan returned to the issue of judicial appointments in August, at the launch of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s Judicial Transparency Index Report, saying that the Collegium not giving reasons for its decisions was “a step back from the principle of transparency”.In his address, Justice Bhuyan referred to remarks seen as anti-Muslim by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, then a judge of the Allahabad High Court, at an event organised by the VHP legal cell in Prayagraj in December 2024.Story continues below this adWithholding reasons for an appointment not only denied the public an opportunity to scrutinise the choice but also allowed candidates whose views ran contrary to constitutional values to be appointed, the Supreme Court judge said.“By not giving reasons, the institution actually does a disservice to many judges who are genuinely outstanding and have done tremendous work… By withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people as ‘ants’ and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional and contrary to the values of the Constitution,” Justice Bhuyan said.In the speech, he also criticised the practice of former judges taking up political roles after retirement. “When a former Chief Justice of India says, ‘I am going to the Rajya Sabha to bridge the gap between the Judiciary and the Executive’, it is fundamentally wrong… There is a fundamental fallacy in it,” Justice Bhuyan said.In 2020, former CJI Rajan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Narendra Modi government; he has since retired.Story continues below this adDissent and criminal lawThe use of criminal law against people expressing unpopular views as well as restrictions imposed on peaceful protests have also featured in Justice Bhuyan’s speeches.During Ramzan in March this year, 14 Muslim youths were arrested in Varanasi after they organised an iftar gathering on a boat on the Ganga. They were accused of consuming chicken biryani and throwing leftovers in the river. They spent three months in jail before securing bail in the matter.During an address at National Law Institute University, Bhopal, the next month, Justice Bhuyan said: “I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. It can’t be an offence… They were arrested for that very reason and they had to remain in jail for three months.”He added that restrictive bail conditions imposed by courts could discourage citizens from exercising their right to dissent.Story continues below this adIn the same address, he criticised the Bombay High Court’s refusal to permit a protest in solidarity with Palestine at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park. Justice Bhuyan said he found the court’s observations “very amusing”. The court rejected the petitioners’ plea over police denial to them asking why they wanted to protest over the situation in Gaza rather than focusing on issues within India.At the August convocation of National Law University Delhi, Justice Bhuyan remarked on the role of universities when it comes to protecting dissent. His remarks came amid the controversy at NALSAR after students opposed CJI Surya Kant from being invited to their convocation. Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra then directed state bar councils to not enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates and sought details of those behind the protest. The directive was later withdrawn. NALSAR is still to hold its convocation.On August 30, Justice Bhuyan said students should not face punitive action for expressing their views. “In a democracy, the right to question is not an act of defiance. It is an essential expression of citizenship, liberty and constitutional responsibility.”Constitutional morality and representationAt a seminar in February, Justice Bhuyan spoke about the gap between constitutional guarantees and everyday discrimination. He said his daughter’s Muslim friend was denied accommodation in Delhi because of her religion and also referred to parents at an Odisha school objecting to their children being served food prepared by a Dalit woman under the midday meal scheme.Story continues below this adThe incidents were “just the tip of the iceberg revealing how deep the societal fault lines are”, Justice Bhuyan said, adding that India remained far from the benchmark of constitutional morality even after seven decades of Independence.