The Crossbill Team
At a time when debates around civil liberties and institutional accountability are intensifying, Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan underscored the need to safeguard dissent and uphold constitutional values, cautioning against the growing tendency to criminalise differing views.
Speaking at a conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association in Bengaluru on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan addressed the role of the judiciary in the vision of “Viksit Bharat,” The Indian Express reported.
He stressed that a healthy democracy must allow space for disagreement and diverse perspectives. He observed that in recent times, criminal cases and FIRs have been filed in a “reckless” manner, pointing to instances where even minor issues such as protests, demonstrations, and activities involving students have led to legal action. He also noted that FIRs are increasingly being registered over memes and social media posts.
Raising concerns about the functioning of stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Justice Bhuyan referred to official data presented in Parliament by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Highlighting low conviction rates under these laws, he said, “A vast majority of persons were arrested but could not be convicted, indicating that arrests may have been premature and unsupported by evidence. This contributes to pendency and backlog.”
Questioning prolonged incarceration without procedural progress, he added, “Why should an accused be confined to jail for years and years together, even five years or six years, without charges being framed, without a chargesheet being filed? Can it go on like this? This cannot be a model of Viksit Bharat, certainly not. This can’t be a model.”
He also acknowledged shortcomings within the judiciary, remarking that some members exhibit a “more loyal than the king” approach, which contributes to undertrial prisoners remaining in custody for extended periods.
While appreciating the political executive’s goal of achieving “Viksit Bharat by 2047,” Justice Bhuyan expressed reservations about the judiciary aligning itself too closely with that vision.
He said, “I have doubts whether the judiciary, though an organ of the state but certainly distinct and separate from the political executive, should join this bandwagon. The judiciary will have to discharge its responsibility, keeping in mind the foundational principles of the republic, which are reflected in the Preamble of the Constitution.”
Emphasising institutional balance, he added, “Judiciary must remain judiciary—judiciary can neither be an eternal critique nor a cheerleader. The judiciary must remain judiciary, that is the role assigned to it by the Constitution and by the people.”
Justice Bhuyan further highlighted the broader responsibility of the courts, stating that the judiciary must act as the moral compass and constitutional conscience of the nation, ensuring checks on the legislature and the executive while protecting democratic values and individual freedoms.
He stated, “The judiciary has neither the purse nor the sword. The only asset it has is the goodwill of the people. That is the core of the judiciary’s strength.”
Speaking at a conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association in Bengaluru on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan addressed the role of the judiciary in the vision of “Viksit Bharat,” The Indian Express reported.
He stressed that a healthy democracy must allow space for disagreement and diverse perspectives. He observed that in recent times, criminal cases and FIRs have been filed in a “reckless” manner, pointing to instances where even minor issues such as protests, demonstrations, and activities involving students have led to legal action. He also noted that FIRs are increasingly being registered over memes and social media posts.
Raising concerns about the functioning of stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Justice Bhuyan referred to official data presented in Parliament by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Highlighting low conviction rates under these laws, he said, “A vast majority of persons were arrested but could not be convicted, indicating that arrests may have been premature and unsupported by evidence. This contributes to pendency and backlog.”
Questioning prolonged incarceration without procedural progress, he added, “Why should an accused be confined to jail for years and years together, even five years or six years, without charges being framed, without a chargesheet being filed? Can it go on like this? This cannot be a model of Viksit Bharat, certainly not. This can’t be a model.”
He also acknowledged shortcomings within the judiciary, remarking that some members exhibit a “more loyal than the king” approach, which contributes to undertrial prisoners remaining in custody for extended periods.
While appreciating the political executive’s goal of achieving “Viksit Bharat by 2047,” Justice Bhuyan expressed reservations about the judiciary aligning itself too closely with that vision.
He said, “I have doubts whether the judiciary, though an organ of the state but certainly distinct and separate from the political executive, should join this bandwagon. The judiciary will have to discharge its responsibility, keeping in mind the foundational principles of the republic, which are reflected in the Preamble of the Constitution.”
Emphasising institutional balance, he added, “Judiciary must remain judiciary—judiciary can neither be an eternal critique nor a cheerleader. The judiciary must remain judiciary, that is the role assigned to it by the Constitution and by the people.”
Justice Bhuyan further highlighted the broader responsibility of the courts, stating that the judiciary must act as the moral compass and constitutional conscience of the nation, ensuring checks on the legislature and the executive while protecting democratic values and individual freedoms.
He stated, “The judiciary has neither the purse nor the sword. The only asset it has is the goodwill of the people. That is the core of the judiciary’s strength.”
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment