‘No Law Prohibits Eating Chicken Over Ganga’: SC Judge Questions Arrests, Bail Curbs in Dissent Cases

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday delivered a strong critique of what he described as the growing criminalisation of ordinary activities and peaceful dissent in India, questioning delayed judicial relief and restrictive bail conditions that, he said, could discourage citizens from exercising their fundamental freedoms.

Addressing the Justice GP Singh 4th Memorial Lecture at the National Law Institute University (NLIU) in Bhopal, Justice Bhuyan cited the arrest of 14 Muslim men accused of eating chicken biryani while breaking their Ramzan fast aboard a boat on the Ganga as a striking example of how routine actions are increasingly attracting criminal prosecution.

"Take for example the case of a group of youngsters breaking their fast over the river Ganga by consuming chicken biryani. I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. It can't be an offence. There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river. They were arrested for that very reason and they had to remain in jail for 3 months," he said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

Meet sitting Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

He was speaking yesterday at NLIU Bhopal : 
1. On Shrinking Space of expression.
2. On Former CJI joining Rajyasabha.
3. On Non-veg at Ganga.
4. On Bulldozer Justice. pic.twitter.com/jJu4fSFsjK

— Rajat Jain (@RajatJain) July 26, 2026

Justice Bhuyan argued that such incidents reflect a broader pattern in which citizens accused in protest or dissent-related cases often receive judicial relief only after prolonged delays. While courts ultimately grant bail in many cases, he said, the wait itself becomes punitive, and the conditions attached to bail often raise troubling constitutional questions.

Warns against shrinking space for dissent

Expressing concern over the state of democratic freedoms, Justice Bhuyan said the space for expressing differing opinions was steadily narrowing, while peaceful civic participation was increasingly being treated as criminal conduct.

"It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one's views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of the citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised," he said.

The judge also questioned whether stringent bail conditions were indirectly discouraging citizens from voicing dissent.

"These issues raise serious questions. Citizens are finding that though the courts are responsive and do grant bail, do grant relief, many a times it is belated. But it is the restrictive conditions which are imposed while granting bail that are causing the greatest concern. By such restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens not to express their dissent?" he said.

Justice Bhuyan pointed to cases where courts granted bail but barred accused individuals from attending public meetings, posting on social media or travelling abroad, suggesting that such restrictions could undermine constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Questions Bombay HC's Gaza protest order

Justice Bhuyan also referred to a July 2025 Bombay High Court order rejecting a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which had sought permission to stage a protest at Mumbai's Azad Maidan over the alleged genocide in Gaza.

The high court had observed, "Our country has enough issues. We don't want anything like this. I am sorry to say, you are all short-sighted. You are looking at issues in Gaza and Palestine. Look at your own country. Be patriots. This is not patriotism. People say they are patriots."

Reflecting on the order, Justice Bhuyan remarked that he found it "very amusing" that a judge questioned why citizens wanted to protest developments taking place outside India.

Says judiciary must welcome criticism

Calling for greater accountability within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan stressed that court judgments should be rigorously examined and criticised whenever necessary, arguing that constructive criticism strengthens rather than weakens the institution.

"Judgments, after being delivered, are required to be critically examined and criticised if necessary. Criticism of a judgment does not amount to criticism of a judge."

Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, including the verdict on reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), he urged students and legal professionals to critically analyse judgments instead of accepting them without question.

"If everybody goes and tells the judges, 'Sir, wonderful thing. Sir, what you say is excellent. Sir, you are a jurist,' then how will the system improve?" he said.

Justice Bhuyan further emphasised that judges must constantly introspect to preserve the judiciary's legitimacy and public trust.

"For the judges and the judiciary to remain legitimate and to remain relevant, public perception is most crucial... It is not for us to make that comment. It is for the citizens to assess. Perception of the citizens as to where the judiciary stands today, more particularly the Supreme Court, 75 years after we have become a Republic, is what matters," he said.

He added that meaningful institutional reform depends on continuous introspection and an open culture of public debate, where judicial decisions can be questioned without fear.

Similar concerns voiced earlier

Earlier this year, while addressing a Supreme Court Bar Association conference in Bengaluru, he warned against the shrinking space for debate and dissent, arguing that a developed India must embrace diverse viewpoints rather than criminalise them.

During that address, he also questioned the extensive use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), highlighting its low conviction rate and arguing that prolonged incarceration without timely trials cannot be the hallmark of a developed democracy.