‘We Still Refuse Homes To Muslims’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Says Social Prejudices Undermine Constitution
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said constitutional morality must outweigh public morality, citing instances of religious and caste discrimination while addressing a judicial seminar in Hyderabad
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan addressed a judicial seminar in Hyderabad, stressing that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views
Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that members of the Muslim community continue to face refusal of housing on account of their identity, and said such practices reflect prevailing social prejudices that are inconsistent with constitutional values.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan referred to instances where individuals are denied accommodation because they are Muslims. He said that despite the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination, such exclusions persist in parts of society.
He observed that these practices indicate a gap between constitutional ideals and social conduct. According to him, the Constitution mandates equality, dignity and fraternity, and any form of discrimination in access to housing runs counter to those guarantees.
Justice Bhuyan further stated that constitutional morality must take precedence over social morality when the two are in conflict. He noted that the Constitution is designed to protect individual rights, even where popular opinion may differ.
Referring to the role of the judiciary, he said courts are duty-bound to uphold fundamental rights and ensure that constitutional protections are not undermined by entrenched social biases.
He described the Constitution as a transformative document intended to shape governance and society in accordance with principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. However, he indicated that the persistence of housing discrimination demonstrates that these objectives are yet to be fully realised.
Justice Bhuyan reiterated that adherence to constitutional values is essential to address discriminatory practices and to ensure that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are effective in everyday life.
Tracing the evolution of the doctrine, he referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalise consensual same-sex relations. Though the ruling was later overturned, its principles were ultimately affirmed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised homosexuality and reinforced constitutional morality as a guiding principle.
“In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view,” he said, adding that courts are concerned with constitutionality, not popular sentiment.
Justice Bhuyan also turned to the role of the district judiciary, describing trial courts as the first interface for most litigants. For many citizens, he said, justice begins and often ends at the district level. He stressed the need for meticulous recording of evidence and careful handling of bail matters, while calling for respect for the dignity of trial judges.
“The High Court is the mentor of the trial courts,” he noted, adding that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is “a shield, not a sword”, meant to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not to reappreciate facts or substitute judicial discretion.
Highlighting representation within the judiciary, Justice Bhuyan said Telangana has made significant strides in improving gender diversity. Of the 655 sanctioned posts in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently filled, of which 283 are women, crossing the 50 percent mark.
He also pointed to representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and the recent inclusion of judicial officers with disabilities following the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services. Bhuyan said the institution must reflect the diversity of India. “It must have all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he remarked, adding that he would welcome greater representation from sexual minorities and transgender persons.
On the recently restored requirement of three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts, Justice Bhuyan said the rule offers practical exposure but may have implications, particularly for women aspirants from rural or economically constrained backgrounds. The initial years of practice, he noted, are financially uncertain and socially demanding, and the long-term impact of the rule on women’s entry into judicial services will need careful observation.