Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court has observed that dissent forms an integral component of constitutional democracy and that individuals expressing divergent opinions must be protected against coercive actions by both State and non-State actors, particularly intolerant and fanatical groups.
Delivering the valedictory address at the Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam International Moot Court Competition organised by the Indore Institute of Law, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that constitutional governance requires engagement with differing viewpoints and ideological diversity. Referring to the Preamble to the Constitution of India, he observed that the constitutional guarantee of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship places tolerance and respect for dissenting opinions at the core of the constitutional framework.
The judge referred to his concurring opinion in Atul Mishra v. Union of India, which arose out of objections to the title of the film Ghooskhor Pandat. Justice Bhuyan observed that the constitutional principles of fraternity and freedom of speech are intrinsically interconnected and that fraternity, as envisaged under the Constitution, embodies collective brotherhood, equality, dignity and mutual respect among citizens.
Justice Bhuyan observed that constitutional fraternity necessarily accommodates tolerance, dissent and plurality of thought. He stated that disagreement with the ideology, faith or beliefs of others cannot furnish a ground for suppression of opposing viewpoints, since constitutional democracy recognises the legitimacy of multiple perspectives.
The judge further observed that intolerance stems from dogmatic assertions regarding the superiority of one set of beliefs over others and cautioned that reasoned constitutional discourse suffers when intolerance prevails. According to him, an intolerant society cannot evolve into a progressive or inclusive constitutional order.
Referring to the observations recorded in the Atul Mishra proceedings, Justice Bhuyan reiterated that it is constitutionally impermissible for either State or non-State actors to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons, visual art or other forms of expression. The proceedings were subsequently closed after filmmaker Neeraj Pandey informed the Court that the title of the film would be changed.
Justice Bhuyan also invoked the constitutional philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar, who had cautioned that liberty without fraternity could result in domination of a few over the many. Stressing the constitutional importance of tolerance and free speech, the judge observed that freedom of expression has historically functioned as an instrument of social transformation, enabling marginalised and excluded communities to participate in democratic and constitutional discourse.
Drawing from global civil rights movements as well as struggles for equality and dignity in India, Justice Bhuyan stated that constitutional values such as justice, equality and liberty can only be meaningfully realised through inclusive participation and social inclusion.
He concluded by observing that constitutionalism must ultimately be viewed from the perspective of the marginalised and unheard rather than the privileged. According to the judge, human rights jurisprudence becomes meaningful only when institutions recognise and respond to human suffering and structural inequalities.
The post Justice Ujjal Bhuyan calls for protection of dissent in constitutional democracy appeared first on India Legal.