Society Should Not Treat Dissent As Threat, No Punitive Actions Against Students For Asking Questions: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday said that students expressing a different point of view or asking questions cannot be threatened with punitive action, as such an approach is unconstitutional and a misuse of power.

While speaking at the 13th convocation ceremony for the LLM students of National Law University, Delhi the supreme court judge said, "When students express a different point of view, when students ask questions, they cannot be threatened with punitive action. That is unconstitutional. That is a misuse of power and office..It's (university) a place where individuals encounter ideas that may be different from their own, where established positions can be examined and questioned, and where disagreements can take place through reason rather than hostility. If we want a democratic society that respects liberty and difference, that culture has to begin from the universities," he said.

Justice Bhuyan further observed that the Indian Constitution recognises that a free society will witness different opinions and beliefs, and that participation in public life will be meaningful only when there is space for dissent.

"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. The ability to live with disagreement is, therefore, not merely a social virtue. It is the very essence of a liberal constitutional democracy," he said.

On a value which the Supreme Court judge believes is just as important as the freedom to question, the judge said, "It is the ability to tolerate disagreement or a different point of view. 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 that prevailing view and to participate in public life would be meaningful only when there is space for dissent. Constitutional democracy therefore requires the state to listen to the citizens. The citizens should listen to one another to have institutions that are accountable and a society that does not treat every dissent as a threat. As you move forward, you will remember that disagreements and differences need not divide us," Justice Bhuyan added.

Justice Bhuyan’s remarks at NLU Delhi underline the constitutional importance of student dissent and the right to question authority. He cautioned that students cannot be subjected to punitive action merely for expressing disagreement or questioning institutional decisions, describing such measures as potentially unconstitutional and an abuse of power.

The observations assume added significance amid the ongoing NALSAR/NLSIU–Bar Council of India controversy, where questions of institutional autonomy, student expression and regulatory authority have come to the forefront. His remarks reinforce that universities, particularly law schools, must remain spaces where disagreement and critical thought are protected rather than punished.

The NALSAR–BCI controversy erupted after a section of NALSAR University of Law students opposed the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the university’s convocation. In response, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra initially directed State Bar Councils to withhold enrolment of the entire 2026 graduating batch, triggering widespread criticism. The order was withdrawn within hours, and the BCI subsequently closed proceedings against the batch.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had later clarified that he never accepted the invitation to be chief guest at the convocation of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad.