Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Emphasises Scientific Temper and Unity Under the Constitution

A sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, recently delivered a significant address emphasising the necessity of rational inquiry, scientific thought, and constitutional oneness. The remarks were made during the 12th Convocation of the University of Science & Technology, Meghalaya. The address focused on how cultivating a questioning mindset safeguards democracy and prevents society from falling into authoritarianism or superstition.

Addressing graduating students, the judge highlighted that democratic institutions and legal frameworks require citizens who actively think for themselves. When people stop questioning traditions or accept assertions without facts, arbitrary authorities can easily take hold. This message matters deeply to all citizens, as it connects everyday public reasoning with the long-term survival of justice and the rule of law across the country.

Background

The observations were made in the context of an academic gathering where young graduates were stepping into public and professional life. Universities are traditionally viewed as melting pots where individuals from varied linguistic, religious, and cultural backgrounds live and study together. Within such spaces, learners confront ideas that may differ significantly from the beliefs they grew up with at home.

Justice Bhuyan used this convocation setting to draw attention to fundamental national values. He noted that academic institutions bear a crucial duty to train minds to look beyond preconceived prejudices. By learning alongside peers with different traditions and diets, students are given a practical opportunity to understand true social diversity and prepare for their civic duties.

What the Court Said

In his speech, Justice Bhuyan observed that unchallenged practices and uncritical obedience pose serious dangers to a progressive society. He explained that accepting claims without proper proof leaves communities vulnerable to false narratives, superstition, and authoritarian control. A healthy democracy, by contrast, relies on open debate and the continuous evaluation of existing practices against standards of fairness.

The judge directly connected critical thinking to democratic stability and governance under the law.

"A society that fears questions becomes vulnerable to authoritarianism."

He urged the audience to abandon divisive thinking that divides people into rigid groups of 'us' versus 'them.' Instead, he pointed to the opening words of the foundational legal text of the country, which unites all citizens as one collective body. True unity, he explained, does not mean erasing personal identities or forcing uniformity, but rather allowing differences to coexist under a shared umbrella of mutual respect.

The Law Explained Simply

The remarks drew directly from the core architecture of the Constitution of India, specifically referencing the Preamble and Article 51A. The Preamble opens with the phrase 'We, the People of India,' establishing that sovereignty belongs to all citizens equally, regardless of regional, religious, or linguistic differences. It seeks to establish justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity among every member of the republic.

Article 51A outlines the Fundamental Duties expected of every Indian citizen. Among these duties is the specific obligation to cultivate a scientific temper, a spirit of humanism, and a drive for inquiry and reform. Unlike ordinary criminal or civil statutes that impose penalties, these provisions serve as a constitutional compass, reminding citizens that maintaining a free society requires continuous personal and community self-examination.

Impact on Common People

These observations carry direct meaning for everyday civic life across India. For ordinary citizens, exercising a scientific temper means evaluating news, public statements, and social claims using sound evidence rather than fear or blind faith. It protects vulnerable individuals from being exploited through superstitious customs, fraudulent claims, or divisive rhetoric designed to pit communities against one another.

For students and educational institutions, the message provides clear encouragement to cultivate classrooms where critical questions are welcomed rather than suppressed. When public spaces respect divergent viewpoints, minority opinions and differing cultural practices can thrive safely. Ultimately, this approach protects the common person by ensuring that public policies and community traditions remain accountable to fairness and reason.

What To Do in a Similar Situation

When citizens or civic groups encounter situations where irrational practices, unlawful social exclusion, or arbitrary actions threaten their constitutional rights, several standard legal steps can be considered:

• Carefully gather and preserve all relevant factual records, written communications, or public notices related to the grievance.
• Verify facts and claims through authentic, official sources before reacting to unverified public narratives or social pressure.
• Engage with formal administrative mechanisms, statutory authorities, or institutional grievance cells that have jurisdiction over the matter.
• Act promptly and within statutory limitation periods if a formal complaint, appeal, or legal petition needs to be filed.
• Consult a qualified advocate to understand whether a specific tradition or arbitrary action violates fundamental rights or established statutory protections.