Students Cannot Be Punished For Asking Questions; Intolerance Is At Odds With Constitution: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Students cannot be threatened or subjected to punitive action merely for expressing views that differ from those in positions of authority, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, stressing that the right to question is central to democratic citizenship.

Speaking at the LLM convocation of the National Law University, Delhi, Justice Bhuyan said, “In a democracy, the right to question is not an act of defiance. It is an essential expression of citizenship, liberty and constitutional responsibility.”  

“So when students express a different point of view, when students ask questions, they cannot be threatened. They cannot be threatened with punitive action. That is unconstitutional. That is misuse of power and office,” he said.

His remarks come against the backdrop of the controversy at Hyderabad's NALSAR University of Law, where students had objected to the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the university's convocation over the CJI's remarks on student protest violence.  

The dispute escalated after the BCI initially directed that State Bar Councils should not enrol graduates of NALSAR's 2026 batch pending an inquiry into the student campaign. After much backlash, the BCI withdrew the letter. The Supreme Court subsequently questioned the BCI's action and directed that no punitive steps be taken against the students or faculty.  

The controversy subsequently spilled over to National Law School of India University in Bengaluru, when the outgoing students objected to the proposed participation of the CJI and the BCI chairman at the university's 2026 convocation.

Following that, NLSIU cancelled its Convocation, citing “unavoidable circumstances”, and said that the students will be awarded degrees "in absentia".

Against this backdrop, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that constitutional democracy does not demand agreement or uniformity of thought.

“Our Constitution does not seek uniformity of thought. It creates a framework in which people with different beliefs, opinions and convictions can live with equal dignity and participate in a common democratic life,” he said.

Stressing the importance of tolerating dissent, Justice Bhuyan said : "A democratic society cannot be built on the edifice that everyone will think alike. It is built on the understanding that differences will exist and that those differences must be accommodated within the broader constitutional framework. Our Constitution gives this idea of tolerance a deeper meaning. It does not ask us to surrender our individuality. It recognizes that a free society will contain different opinions, beliefs and ways of looking at the world. The freedom to express an opinion, to disagree with the prevailing view and to participate in public life would be meaningful only when there is space for dissent."

Intolerant mind at odds with the Constitution

An intolerant mind is fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the Constitution and intolerance itself can become “another form of violence”, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, stressing that disagreement and dissent cannot be treated as grounds for silencing or punishing students.

 "An intolerant mind, by its very nature, is at odds with the spirit of the Constitution. It is a manifestation of another form of violence. India is the land of Buddha and Gandhi. India is the land of peace and tolerance. There is no place for violence in our society. Our Constitution protects the freedom to speak, to think and to believe differently. Intolerance begins to undermine that framework when disagreement or dissent is no longer treated as a legitimate difference of opinion, but as something that must be silenced, rejected or punished."

Universities must encourage free thinking

If we want a democratic society that respects liberty and difference, that culture has to begin in universities, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, stressing that institutions of higher learning must be spaces where students are encouraged to think freely, question established positions and engage with difficult ideas.

"If we want a democratic society that respects liberty and difference, that culture has to begin from the universities. A university, in my view, should be one of the first places where the habit of thinking freely begins. It should be a space where an idea is not accepted merely because it is familiar, and where students does not hesitate to ask difficult questions simply because the answer may be uncomfortable...The law constantly places us in situations where one person's freedom may appear to conflict with another, where the exercise of power must be balanced against individual rights, and where an established position may have to be examined in the light of constitutional principles."

Justice Bhuyan ended his address by underscoring the larger responsibility of the legal profession and academia in preserving constitutional values. “The role of a legal professional or legal academic is therefore not simply to know what the law says, but to understand the values that give the law its legitimacy. Liberty, equality, dignity and justice are not abstract words in our Constitution. The responsibility of the legal profession and legal scholars is to ensure that even in moments of disagreement, even in moments of dissent, even in moments of conflict, these constitutional values remain at the core of our understanding of law,” he said.