Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Dissent is Integral to Constitutional Democracy, Must Be Protected from Intolerance

May 20, 2026 : Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court has observed that dissent constitutes an essential feature of constitutional democracy and that individuals expressing divergent opinions must be protected from coercive actions by both State and non-State actors, particularly intolerant and fanatical groups.

Delivering the valedictory address at the Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam International Moot Court Competition organised by the Indore Institute of Law, Justice Bhuyan stated that constitutional governance necessarily requires engagement with differing viewpoints and ideological diversity.

Referring to the Preamble of the Constitution of India, the judge observed that the constitutional guarantee of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship places tolerance and respect for dissenting opinions at the centre of the constitutional framework.

Justice Bhuyan referred to his concurring opinion in Atul Mishra v. Union of India, which arose from objections raised to the title of the film Ghooskhor Pandat. He observed that the constitutional principles of fraternity and freedom of speech are intrinsically connected and that fraternity, as envisaged under the Constitution, represents collective brotherhood, equality, dignity and mutual respect among citizens.

According to the judge, constitutional fraternity necessarily accommodates tolerance, dissent and plurality of thought. He emphasised that disagreement with the ideology, faith or beliefs of others cannot justify suppression of opposing viewpoints, since constitutional democracy recognises the legitimacy of multiple perspectives.

Justice Bhuyan further observed that intolerance arises from dogmatic assertions regarding the superiority of one set of beliefs over others and cautioned that reasoned constitutional discourse suffers when intolerance prevails. He stated that an intolerant society cannot evolve into a progressive or inclusive constitutional order.

Referring again to the observations recorded in the Atul Mishra proceedings, Justice Bhuyan reiterated that it is constitutionally impermissible for either State or non-State actors to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons, visual art or other forms of expression. The proceedings were subsequently closed after filmmaker Neeraj Pandey informed the Court that the title of the film would be changed.

Invoking the constitutional philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar, Justice Bhuyan noted that Ambedkar had cautioned that liberty without fraternity could result in domination of a few over the many.

Stressing the constitutional significance of tolerance and free speech, the judge observed that freedom of expression has historically functioned as an instrument of social transformation, enabling marginalised and excluded communities to participate in democratic and constitutional discourse.

Drawing from global civil rights movements as well as struggles for equality and dignity in India, Justice Bhuyan stated that constitutional values such as justice, equality and liberty can only be meaningfully realised through inclusive participation and social inclusion.

He concluded by observing that constitutionalism must ultimately be viewed from the perspective of the marginalised and unheard rather than the privileged. According to the judge, human rights jurisprudence becomes meaningful only when institutions recognise and respond to human suffering and structural inequalities.