‘Questioning is the Bedrock of Democracy’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Calls for Intellectual Inquiry to Curb Authoritarianism
NEW DELHI: In a compelling address that resonated with the current national discourse on governance and civil liberties, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan warned that a society becomes vulnerable to authoritarianism the moment it begins to fear critical inquiry. Speaking at the convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), Justice Bhuyan emphasized that the preservation of India’s democracy relies on its citizens’ ability to maintain a scientific temperament and a commitment to public reasoning.
The Danger of Unchecked Power
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks come at a time when the political climate in India remains highly polarized, with opposition leaders frequently raising concerns regarding the health of democratic institutions. Addressing the graduating students, the judge argued that when a society labels tradition or authority as “beyond scrutiny,” it creates a vacuum where unjust practices can flourish unchecked.
“Arbitrary power thrives on ignorance, fear, and unexamined belief,” Justice Bhuyan observed. He pointed out that Article 51A of the Indian Constitution—which mandates that citizens develop a scientific temperament—is not merely about academic or technological knowledge. Rather, it is a directive to cultivate a mindset rooted in logic. He posited that the rule of law is inextricably linked to the ability of citizens to examine claims, demand evidence, and reject the prevalence of misinformation.
Moving Beyond the ‘Us vs. Them’ Binary
Central to the Justice’s address was a call for national unity. He urged citizens to abandon the destructive, divisive rhetoric of “us versus them,” which has increasingly come to define public debate. Instead, he championed the constitutional philosophy of “we.”
Drawing inspiration from Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s seminal work, The Idea of Justice, Justice Bhuyan drew a sharp distinction between “institutional democracy” and “functional democracy.” While institutional frameworks—such as elections and courts—are vital, he noted that a functional democracy is entirely dependent on the public’s participation in scrutiny and debate. He emphasized that the circulation of information is a fundamental “due process” requirement for any society that aims to resonate with justice.
Constitutional Identity and Diversity
Perhaps the most nuanced portion of his address touched upon the nature of India’s constitutional unity. By highlighting the opening phrase of the Preamble—”We, the People of India”—Justice Bhuyan underscored that the Constitution addresses all citizens as equal members of a single order. He argued that this collective identity does not necessitate the erasure of individual or group identities.
In a segment of his speech that many analysts interpret as a subtle critique of moves toward a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the judge maintained that diversity is not a hurdle to national unity but rather the very substance that gives meaning to the Indian project. “It does not require that our individual identities should get subsumed in the larger whole,” he stated.
Concluding his address, Justice Bhuyan reminded the assembly that true strength lies in the willingness to listen to dissenting opinions. He asserted that meaningful, healthy debates are only possible when there is unfettered access to information, reaffirming that a nation that invites questions is ultimately the one best equipped to protect its own future.
Disclaimer: This content is auto-generated for informational purposes only.
Source: Read Original News
