Difference of Opinion Is Not Disobedience: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Highlights the Role of Dissent in Democracy

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated at NLU Delhi that questioning and holding differing views in a democracy is a constitutional right, not disobedience. He emphasized fostering independent thought and professional integrity among law students.

Speaking at the convocation ceremony of the National Law University (NLU) Delhi, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a strong message regarding the fundamental importance of dissent and questioning within a democratic society. He stated that raising questions or holding perspectives that differ from the majority is not an act of disobedience, but rather an essential component of active citizenship, personal liberty, and constitutional responsibility. He made it clear that students cannot be intimidated, threatened, or penalized simply for expressing an alternate viewpoint or asking probing questions, labeling such actions as unconstitutional and a clear misuse of authority and power.

Justice Bhuyan elaborated that the framework of the nation's constitution does not seek uniformity of thought across society or within institutional walls. Instead, the vitality and strength of a democracy depend heavily upon dissent and independent intellectual inquiry. He asserted that universities must look beyond the mere distribution of degrees, shouldering the crucial responsibility of cultivating independent thinking, the courage to question, and reasoned disagreement among young minds.

He reiterated that the right to question within a democracy is never an act of defiance. It serves as a necessary expression of citizenship, freedom, and constitutional duty. Whenever students bring forward alternative perspectives or seek clarification, subjecting them to intimidation or threats of punishment is entirely unacceptable. He categorized such measures as unconstitutional practices that reflect a wrongful exercise of power.

Shifting focus to the legal profession, Justice Bhuyan emphasized the vital role of ethics and professional uprightness. He noted that the practice of law is anchored in numerous ethical duties, many of which are not explicitly codified in written regulations. Maintaining professional integrity requires a distinct brand of courage and unwavering conviction.

Citing the insights of American Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he advised law graduates to view the legal profession not merely as a means of earning a livelihood, but as a distinct way of living. According to him, a remarkable life is not defined solely by the accumulation of wealth or fame, but by striving for something greater than oneself and actively pursuing the cause of justice.

Addressing the students stepping into the legal arena, Justice Bhuyan warned that their courage, commitment, and character would face continuous tests throughout their professional lives. He acknowledged that walking the path of honesty is difficult, particularly when no one is watching. Yet, he noted that within these very challenges lie the profound possibilities of living a meaningful and purposeful life.

Finally, he encouraged students to pursue higher education and delve deeper into legal research. Justice Bhuyan observed that robust academic institutions serve as vital assets to the judiciary. While the judiciary relies on the academic world for necessary intellectual inputs, universities enrich the justice delivery system by advancing research across various branches of law, defining both entities as complementary rather than competitive forces.

What this means for you
This perspective on dissent and legal ethics carries meaningful implications for academic campuses and the legal profession across the country.

• Across India: It reinforces the constitutional protection of students and citizens to engage in questioning and independent thought across institutions nationwide.
• For Students and Youths: Young scholars and law students speaking up or expressing reasoned disagreement gain theoretical backing against administrative intimidation or penal threats.
• For the Legal Profession: New entrants into the legal field are encouraged to prioritize professional integrity and ethical principles over mere financial gains.
• For Institutional Synergy: Fostering a collaborative bond between universities and the judiciary strengthens foundational legal research and intellectual inputs.
• For Democratic Norms: It discourages the criminalization of dissent within society, ensuring that freedom of expression remains protected.

Questions & Answers

1. At which event did Justice Ujjal Bhuyan make these remarks?
He made these statements while addressing the convocation ceremony of National Law University (NLU) Delhi.

2. How did Justice Bhuyan describe questioning and holding differing views in a democracy?
He stated that it is not an act of disobedience but an essential expression of citizenship, freedom, and constitutional responsibility.

3. What is Justice Bhuyan's stance on students expressing alternate viewpoints?
He made it clear that students cannot be intimidated or threatened with punishment for holding different views, calling it a misuse of power.

4. What advice did Justice Bhuyan give regarding the legal profession?
Citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he advised viewing law not merely as a means to earn a living, but as a way of life.

5. What did he say about the relationship between the judiciary and academic institutions?
He described the judiciary and the academic world as complementary to each other rather than being competitors.

https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/difference-of-opinion-is-not-disobedience-justice-ujjjal-bhuyan-highlights-the-role-of-dissent-in-democracy-24621
TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.