Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday, July 26, said there was no law banning anyone from consuming chicken over the Ganga, referring to the arrest of 14 Muslim youth over the iftar party where they ate chicken biryani on a boat ride in Varanasi during Ramzan.
Addressing the 4th Justice GP Singh Memorial Lecture at NLIU Bhopal, Justice Bhuyan criticised the three-month incarceration of a youth for conduct that fails to constitute a criminal offence.
“I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. It can’t be an offence…they were arrested for that very reason, and they had to remain in jail for three months,” he said.
In March, the Varanasi police arrested 14 Muslim youth under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 298 and 299 for outraging religious feelings, promoting enmity, public nuisance, and violating the Water Pollution Control Act. According to the complaint, the youths ate chicken biryani and discarded meat remnants into the holy river, violating its spiritual sanctity in Sanatan Dharma.
‘Dissent increasingly being criminalised’
The top Court judge said that peaceful protests that are central to a democracy, but normal acts of dissent are increasingly being labelled as criminal conduct.
“The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of the citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised,” Justice Bhuyan said.
He noted that environmental advocates are routinely criminalised, while students face extended jail time exceeding a month simply for participating in campus protests. “People who come to voice their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they are criminals. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30-40 days,” he said.
Students are often suspended as well, he said, forcing them to knock the doors of the courts before they can continue their education.
‘Are courts demotivating citizens from expressing dissent?’
Justice Bhuyan raised concerns over whether stringent bail terms imposed by courts serve to suppress public dissent. “Though the courts are responsive and do grant bail, many a time it is belated. But it is the restrictive conditions which are imposed while granting bail that are causing the greatest concern. By such restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens from expressing their dissent?” he questioned.
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling against punitive “bulldozer justice,” Justice Bhuyan said the judgement was positive, but arrived “two years too late.” Addressing instances where individuals released on bail faced restrictions against attending public gatherings or sharing content online, the judge remarked that such constraints “severely undermine their fundamental freedoms and liberty.”
He also commented on Bombay High Court’s refusal to allow a pro-Palestine demonstration, saying he found the court’s remarks “very amusing. Noting that the petitioners were questioned about protesting Gaza rather than the local issues, the judge highlighted India’s long-standing recognition of Palestine and the presence of the Palestinian Embassy in India.
