A Misplaced Critique: Why Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s Observations Miss the Mark

 

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent remarks at the Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture in Bhopal are, regrettably, neither legally sound nor logically acceptable. Expressing concern over the alleged criminalisation of "normal activities," he criticised what he termed a disproportionate police response to youths organising an Iftar and consuming chicken on a boat on the Ganga River. Questioning their arrest and subsequent three-month denial of bail, he argued that "there is no law prohibiting the consumption of chicken over the Ganga."

With the utmost respect to the honourable judge, I must strongly beg to differ. I wish to draw attention to Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence. Criminal liability hinges on two foundational elements: mens rea (guilty intent) and actus reus (guilty act). In this incident, both elements undeniably coexisted. The actions of these individuals on the Ganges were not benign; they constituted a deliberate offence.

In a communally sensitive atmosphere, choosing to break a religious fast by consuming meat on the Ganga—a river revered as profoundly sacred by the majority of the country—was a calculated act of provocation. This was not a simple dietary choice; it was a brazen affront designed to mock and deliberately hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community in a deeply venerated space.

It is unfortunate that instead of commending the authorities for their timely intervention—which likely prevented the situation from spiralling out of control—the honourable judge chose to criticise them. The BNS clearly stipulates that committing an offence in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies carries a penalty of up to five years of imprisonment, alongside a fine. By consuming chicken and discarding the waste directly into the holy river, the intent of these miscreants to foment unrest was glaringly clear.

 

Protests at Jantar Mantar were bound to collapse

 From day one, it was a foregone conclusion that the Jantar Mantar movement was bound to fail, as it was taken over by lumpen elements, transgenders, and loose girls spitting indecent abuse. It was an open secret that the so-called movement was foreign-funded, as the meals distributed at the protest site were ordered from Germany, the US, and Dubai. Now, with the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, there is nothing left, and most of them have already dispersed. The number of students participating in the protest was negligible, as they had already seen through the politics of some Aandolanjivis. Many faces appear only during some or other agitation.

What was most disturbing was that these protestors were crossing all the limits of obscenity during the demonstrations. There was one demonstrator who was seen flashing his private part, and many lumpen girls were seen indulging in vulgar dance. What was all the more condemnable was the misbehaviour towards media persons. They were abused and molested.

Even Sonam Wangchuk, who had brought some energy to the protests, has disowned the CJP movement. One may recall that the day Deepake returned from the US and sought permission from the Delhi police to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar, he was readily granted permission, but there were not a dozen persons with them. It was Mr Wangchuk who brought some Ladakhis to give it the look of a protest.

The real drama began to unfold when some political parties brought their own supporters to participate in the march, and they started pulling the protests in their own directions. Rahul Gandhi, who looks like a dry drug addict, changed the venue from Jantar Mantar to a high-security zone near the PM residence. Others like Akhilesh Yadav, who is totally bereft of any ideas, were clueless about the protests. Persons like Kejriwal were trying to hijack, but Dipake and his company opposed them. Thus, the protest was rudderless from the beginning. However, if the Delhi police is not allowed to take any action against the lumpen elements, it will send a bad message to law-abiding citizens and among law-enforcing agencies.

Experts will have to devise ways to Prevent Unruly Ruckus in Courtrooms

The deplorable drama witnessed yesterday, i.e. Friday, in the Supreme Court courtroom defies all logic in the functioning of the court. Nobody has a ready-made answer to how such sordid scenes can be averted. There is no doubt that both judges on the bench have a high reputation for commendable behaviour, and the way the petitioner-in-person presented his case in court appeared to be mentally deranged. In a short span of a few months, such incidents have occurred twice in the Supreme Court, and if steps are not taken to prevent them, they are bound to occur elsewhere as well.

The petitioner-in-person is said to be an advocate by training. Earlier, the person who attempted to hurl shoes at the then CJI, Justice Gawai, was also an advocate. We have been watching such incidents in Parliament, Assemblies, hospitals and other areas of public life, but courts have been largely free from such unruly behaviour. Heated arguments have certainly taken place between lawyers and judges elsewhere, but no one can blame either lawyers or judges alone. Both have been responsible in their own way; however, what happened yesterday was unprecedented.

In fact, the courts and other experts will have to jointly think over devising ways to prevent the occurrence of such incidents

Appointment of a Dalit as the General Secretary of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Must Be Welcomed

 The appointment of Shri Krishna Mohan, a member of the Dalit community, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust in Ayodhya deserves to be wholeheartedly welcomed. He succeeds Shri Champat Rai Bansal in overseeing the administration of the grand Shri Ram Temple, one of the most significant religious and cultural projects in independent India.

This appointment also serves as a powerful response to the politics of caste symbolism. Those who repeatedly invoke the slogan of "PDA" while claiming to champion the cause of the marginalised now find their narrative seriously weakened. Shri Akhilesh Yadav and his party have long relied on caste-based political mobilisation in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the decision of the Nyas demonstrates that genuine social inclusion is achieved through meaningful responsibility and leadership, not merely through electoral rhetoric. Despite projecting himself as a modern, educated leader, Shri Yadav too often reduces public discourse to narrow caste calculations, exposing the hollowness of his claims.

The contribution of Shri Champat Rai to the construction and management of the grand Ram Temple is beyond dispute. His dedication and administrative ability have earned him widespread respect across the country and abroad. Many facilities available to devotees today—including wheelchairs for the elderly and differently abled, well-organised pilgrim services, and free darshan for all—reflect the vision and commitment of the Nyas. In several respects, these arrangements compare favourably even with those at some of India's most prominent temples.

It is, therefore, both unfortunate and puzzling that attempts are now being made to cast aspersions on the temple administration over allegations relating to donation receipts. In most temples across India, devotees make offerings as an act of faith without expecting formal receipts for every contribution. Any genuine complaint should, of course, be examined fairly. Still, it is equally important that speculation and politically motivated campaigns do not undermine the credibility of an institution built through the sacrifices and devotion of millions.

There is an old belief in the Awadh region that Ayodhya has never spared even the noblest of its inhabitants from controversy. Since the time of Lord Shri Ram and Mata Sita, great personalities associated with this sacred city have faced trials, criticism, and allegations despite their virtue. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a selfless individual like Shri Champat Rai will emerge with his integrity intact after any fair and impartial inquiry.

Ayodhya, once neglected for centuries, has today been transformed into a city of pride and spiritual grandeur. A substantial share of the credit belongs to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, whose leadership, together with the Ram Janmabhumi Nyas, has restored the city's historical and civilizational glory. This transformation will be remembered for generations. Those who seek to exploit controversies for political gain or create unnecessary discord around this sacred project may earn temporary headlines, but history is unlikely to judge them kindly.

 

Hopefully, the Indo-Bangladesh border will soon be fenced

 One shudders to think about the situation in West Bengal if Mamata Banerjee had again returned to power. Lawlessness and goondaism would have gone beyond imagination. The way Bangladeshi intruders occupied the streets and roads, and nobody had the guts to speak against them because the administration of Mamata Banerjee was always there to stand by the lawbreakers.

The fencing of the Indo-Bangladesh border could not be carried out because there was no local administrative support. The Bangladeshi intruders are now creating hurdles in fencing off the borders.

As a result of the porous border, cattle smuggling and other problems have crept up in India. The total length of the Indo–Bangladesh border in West Bengal is 22,17 km, out of which 1648 km has already been covered by a fence. With the change of government in West Bengal, it is hoped that the rest of the border will soon be fenced.

The way protest marches were taken out on the renaming of Suhrawardy Street after Gopal Prasad Mukherji, who was also known as Gopal Patha, the Hindu leader of pre-partition India, who saved thousands of Hindu men, women and children, is a matter of shame. Some people say the street was not named after the killer Suhrawardy, who later became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but after his nephew, who happened to be the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University. The moot question is why the name of any Suhrawardy should be there in any form?

What is more tragic is that the TMC has not expressed any regret so far over this situation in West Bengal, for which it is directly responsible. It is expected that the border will be fenced sooner rather than later, making the lives of the people and the security of the country safer.

 

 

 

 

Refusal of Lawters body to take up any case is unjustifed

 Disturbing reports from Ayodhya indicate that the district's legal fraternity has resolved not to represent individuals accused of misappropriating donations made to the Ram Mandir. If the allegations are true, the alleged theft of devotees' offerings is unquestionably reprehensible, and those responsible should be punished in accordance with the law. However, how can a body of lawyers effectively treat an accused person as guilty even before a court has conducted a trial?

The lawyers' association has adopted this position as a mark of protest against the alleged misappropriation of temple donations. It has reportedly also warned that any advocate who appears on behalf of the accused will face a penalty of ₹5 lakh.

In addition, the association has demanded that prominent temple trust functionaries, including Champat Rai and Anil Mishra, leave Ayodhya, failing which it has threatened to blockade the entire city. This collective boycott has reignited an important constitutional debate about every accused person's right to legal representation and a fair trial.

Indian law, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, recognises the right of every accused person to be represented by a lawyer. Where an accused is unable to engage or afford legal counsel, legal assistance is available through the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The right to legal representation does not imply innocence. Rather, it ensures that guilt or innocence is determined through a fair, impartial, and lawful judicial process. Indian courts have consistently affirmed that the legal profession exists to serve the administration of justice, not to reflect public outrage or popular sentiment. Representing an accused person is not an endorsement of the alleged crime.

Although an advocate may exercise personal discretion in accepting a brief, the legal framework of India is unequivocal: every accused person, irrespective of the nature of the allegations, is entitled to competent legal representation and a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves before a court of law.

An advocate's foremost duty is to uphold the rule of law, which rests on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence and remains intact until a competent court records a conviction after a fair trial.

Indeed, even when a lawyer personally believes, or is aware, that a client may have committed an offence, professional ethics require the lawyer to provide competent, diligent, and fearless representation within the bounds of the law. A lawyer's duty is not to determine guilt, but to ensure that justice is administered through due process and that the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial are preserved for every individual.

Law without morality is a body without a soul

It is often said that “law without morality is a body without a soul.” The maxim suggests that what is legally permissible may not always be morally acceptable, and what is morally objectionable may not necessarily amount to a legal wrong. In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a married woman meeting her former partner on a single occasion, even in a compromising situation, cannot automatically be treated as proof of adultery.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute involving an Indian Navy officer who alleged that his wife refused to share a bed with him and continued to maintain a relationship with her former boyfriend after marriage. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. However, while considering the allegations of adultery, the High Court observed that a solitary incident was insufficient to establish that the wife was living in an adulterous relationship. The Court reiterated that adultery is a serious allegation and must be proved through cogent, convincing, and continuous evidence rather than through suspicion, assumptions, or isolated encounters.

Learned trial court, in its rightful wisdom, also observed that the conduct of the respondent-wife in meeting her male friend, being a single incident, cannot be said to indicate that she was living in adultery with him. The marriage had taken place in November 2021, and no child was born from the union. The husband alleged that his wife was quarrelsome, frequently returned home late, refused to share a bed with him, and spent long hours on her mobile phone talking to other people. The wife denied these allegations and, in turn, accused the husband and his family of subjecting her to dowry-related harassment. She further alleged that her father-in-law had improper intentions towards her and that her husband failed to support her when she complained about his conduct.

The Family Court found serious inconsistencies in the wife's version of events. It was observed that her allegation against her father-in-law appeared improbable, particularly because she continued to communicate with him despite claiming that he had improper intentions towards her. On that basis, the court treated her allegations with caution.

Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court serve as precedents that guide the adjudication of future cases involving similar issues. Therefore, judicial pronouncements often have implications extending beyond the parties before the court. One has reasons to disagree with the High Court's approach and argue that matrimonial fidelity occupies a special place in Indian society, particularly among Hindus, where marriage is regarded not merely as a contract but as a sacrament. From this perspective, the vows exchanged during marriage represent solemn commitments that courts should seek to uphold in order to preserve mutual trust and confidence between spouses.

Others may contend that courts must distinguish between moral disapproval and legal proof. They may argue that a finding of adultery should rest on clear and convincing evidence rather than conjecture, however strong the suspicions may be. The maxim Fiat justitia ruat caelum.Let justice be done though the heavens fall is the most appropriate in this case. The debate, therefore, lies at the intersection of law, morality, and the institution of marriage—a field in which courts are often required to balance legal standards of proof with prevailing social and moral expectations. That the judges have thus "made a mockery of the law by keeping the tradition and morality at bay. Oliver Wendell Holmes had said that” The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."