Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking at NLIU Bhopal, used the Varanasi chicken biryani arrests to warn that democratic space in India is shrinking. He stressed there is no law against eating chicken over the Ganga, condemned criminalisation of ordinary acts and delayed bail, and urged protection of civil liberties, student dissent and academic freedom as core democratic values.
ON SATURDAY, JULY 25, 2026, Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a lecture at the National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal. While delivering the fourth Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture, Justice Bhuyan raised concerns over the space for democratic dissent in India, which, according to him, is shrinking. He used the example of the March 2026 case in which Muslim men were arrested in the Varanasi chicken biryani case.
Justice Bhuyan questioned the arrest of these Muslim men, raising concerns over the criminalisation of ordinary activities and the increasing use of restrictive bail conditions. At the beginning of his lecture, he also offered an assessment of the Supreme Court. Bhuyan said, “Though I am a part of the Supreme Court, I am an insider. I am critical of the functioning of the Supreme Court to a great extent, and I don’t mince my words.” He further paid tribute to Justice G.P. Singh and described him as one of India’s finest judges.
Justice Bhuyan explained his concerns over the decreasing space for democratic dissent using the case of the Varanasi 'Iftar party'. In the case, Muslim men were arrested for consuming chicken biryani while breaking their Ramzan fast on a boat on the river Ganga. The men were arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by a Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha leader, who alleged that the incident hurt religious sentiments.
Justice Bhuyan said, “I'm sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. It can’t be an offence. There’s no law that prohibits the consumption of chicken over the Ganga River.” He further expressed concern over the arrest of these men, saying that they were arrested for that very reason and remained in jail for three months. “Three months, can you imagine?” he said. He added that it took the court three months to grant these men bail “for such an activity?”
Justice Bhuyan said that incidents like these reflect a broader trend of shrinking democratic space. Addressing the audience, he said, “It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India.” He stressed the importance of civil liberties and said that the right to express one's views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of citizens in a democratic society. He said, “Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy.” He added that he was saddened that nowadays normal activities such as these are being criminalised.
He then spoke about student protests and how bail processes in such cases are delayed, with restrictive conditions often being imposed. Speaking about environmental movements and student protests, he said, “People who come to voice their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they are criminals.” He also pointed to the treatment of student protesters, saying that students who raise their voices on campuses are sent to jail and are unable to get bail for 30 to 40 days, after which they have to approach the courts, which takes even more time.
He said that while they do get relief, delayed bail and restrictive conditions undermine constitutional freedoms. He questioned whether, because of these restrictions imposed by courts, “the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens not to express their dissent?” Bhuyan further cited examples of student activists who spend days and often months in jail and, when granted bail, are asked not to take part in public gatherings or online discussions. He said that their passports are surrendered and many restrictive conditions are imposed, which undermine their fundamental freedoms and liberty.
He further urged universities to give students the space to dissent and debate rather than making them fear uncomfortable discussions. Referring to reports of disciplinary action against students for asking questions, he said, “Universities should be seen as encouraging students to engage in debates, to engage in uncomfortable questions. Comfortable questions: everybody can ask, everybody can answer. These uncomfortable questions are not seen as curbing or stifling such voices.”
Bhuyan also said that universities should encourage academic freedom and critical thinking. He said, “Our universities should have that much academic autonomy to venture into uncharted territory.” He stressed that judicial decisions should remain open to academic scrutiny and said that students need to be critical instead of thinking in only one way and should question, including the judiciary. He said, “Criticism of a judgement does not amount to criticism of a judge.”
While addressing the audience, he also spoke about the separation of powers among the three pillars of democracy—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. He said that these three institutions should work independently while maintaining checks and balances. He criticised the decision of a former Chief Justice of India to join the Rajya Sabha, saying, “Therefore, when a former CJI says I am going to the Rajya Sabha, to bridge the gap between the judiciary and the executive. It is fundamentally wrong. It is completely wrong. Fundamentally, it goes against the principle of separation of powers. It is a fundamental fallacy there.”
He further highlighted the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary. Justice Bhuyan said, “Though it is the constitutional duty of all the three organs of the state to uphold the Constitution by ensuring that the basic structure of the Constitution does not suffer any assault. Ultimately, it is for the judiciary and more particularly the Supreme Court to ensure that these essential features are protected.” He added, “I ask myself if the judges do not protect the independence of the judiciary, who else will protect? If the judges do not enforce the rule of law, who else will?”
(Edited by Harsh Pandey)
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store