Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India has raised critical concerns regarding the systemic delays in granting bail and the imposition of restrictive conditions that may stifle constitutional rights. Speaking at a lecture at the National Law University (NLU) in Delhi, Justice Bhuyan argued that the judicial process often transforms bail—a mechanism intended to protect personal liberty—into a punitive tool. By highlighting the disparity between legal prohibitions and judicial practice, the judge cautioned that prolonged incarceration for minor offenses and onerous bail terms can create a chilling effect on the right to dissent and free expression.
The remarks were delivered during an academic engagement where Justice Bhuyan addressed law students and legal professionals. A central theme of his address was the distinction between actual legality and the practical application of the law by the judiciary and enforcement agencies. To illustrate this point, Justice Bhuyan noted that while there is no law prohibiting the act of eating chicken over the Ganga river, the legal system often reacts with disproportionate severity to perceived social or cultural transgressions.
Justice Bhuyan focused heavily on the crisis of delayed bail within the Indian criminal justice system. He stated that courts frequently grant relief only after significant delays, effectively ensuring that the accused serves a substantial portion of a potential sentence before being released on bail. This pattern, he noted, undermines the fundamental legal maxim that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
Furthermore, the judge scrutinized the nature of the conditions attached to bail. He observed that courts often impose restrictive terms that are not necessarily required for the administration of justice but instead serve to limit the movements and activities of the individual. Justice Bhuyan argued that when these conditions are overly burdensome, they can discourage citizens from exercising their right to dissent, as the fear of violating a strict bail condition may lead to self-censorship or the avoidance of public political engagement.
Analysis: Justice Bhuyan’s comments point to a systemic failure where procedural delays function as a form of pre-trial punishment. In the Indian legal context, the gap between the filing of a charge sheet and the final adjudication of bail often leaves defendants in custody for months or years. When the judiciary imposes “onerous terms”—such as restrictive travel bans or frequent reporting requirements for non-violent offenders—it effectively extends the state’s control over the individual beyond the walls of the prison. By linking these procedural hurdles to the “right to dissent,” Justice Bhuyan is framing bail not merely as a technical legal step, but as a safeguard for democratic participation. The implication is that if the cost of dissent is a prolonged, unpredictable stay in jail followed by restrictive surveillance, the constitutional guarantee of free speech becomes nominal rather than functional.
The context of these remarks is situated within a broader national debate over criminal justice reform. India’s prisons are frequently reported to be overcrowded, with a vast majority of the population consisting of undertrials—individuals who have not yet been convicted of a crime. The use of stringent laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or various state-level sedition and public order laws, has often made obtaining bail an uphill battle for activists, journalists, and political dissidents.
Justice Bhuyan cited several cases where individuals were held in custody for extended periods for minor offenses. These examples served to illustrate how the bail process can become a tool of attrition. In many such instances, the legal battle for release lasts longer than the maximum sentence the individual would have received had they been convicted. This inversion of justice suggests that the process itself becomes the punishment, regardless of the eventual verdict.
The reference to the Ganga river serves as a metaphor for the tension between statutory law and social morality. By asserting that “no law bars eating chicken over Ganga,” the judge highlighted a recurring issue in the Indian judiciary: the tendency of lower courts or police to act on “moral” or “cultural” grounds rather than strict legal statutes. When the judiciary fails to check these impulses, it allows for the arbitrary detention of citizens based on social norms rather than codified law.
Looking ahead, the legal community will be watching for whether these observations translate into a shift in the Supreme Court’s approach to bail applications. There is an increasing call for the establishment of a standardized “bail act” or a more rigorous set of guidelines to prevent the arbitrary imposition of restrictive conditions. Legal experts suggest that a move toward “bail as a right” for non-violent offenders, regardless of the nature of the accusation, would be the necessary step to address the concerns raised by Justice Bhuyan.
Additionally, the focus on “restrictive conditions” may prompt a review of how trial courts handle the release of political prisoners and activists. If the judiciary begins to view onerous bail conditions as a violation of the right to free expression, it could lead to a reduction in the use of “surveillance-style” bail, where defendants are forced to surrender passports or report to police stations daily without a clear flight risk or evidence of tampering.
The lecture at NLU Delhi underscores a critical internal critique within the highest level of the Indian judiciary. By acknowledging that the system can be used to discourage dissent, Justice Bhuyan has placed the responsibility on the courts to act as a bulwark against executive overreach. The conclusion remains that for the constitutional guarantee of liberty to be meaningful, the judicial system must ensure that the path to bail is transparent, swift, and free from conditions that serve as a proxy for continued incarceration.
Sources:
– Times of India, “No law bars eating chicken over Ganga: SC judge flags delayed bail at NLIU lecture” – https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-law-prohibits-eating-chicken-over-ganga-river-supreme-court-judge-flags-delayed-bail/articleshow/132640578.cms
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Times of India – Top Stories — source
