"Consuming Biryani Is No Offence": Why Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Is Trending Nationwide

"Consuming Biryani Is No Offence": Why Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Is Trending Nationwide

In an era where the boundary between criminal offenses and everyday personal liberties is under intense public debate, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India, generated national headlines following an unreserved address at the 4th Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture organized by the National Law Institute University (NLIU) in Bhopal.

Speaking on the theme of shrinking public space for democratic debate and the routine denial of bail, Justice Bhuyan highlighted a case where a group of young individuals spent three months in jail after being arrested for hosting an Iftar gathering and eating chicken biryani on a boat in the middle of the Ganga river in Varanasi.

His direct observation went viral across media platforms, drawing attention to fundamental freedoms under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), the doctrine that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," and the independence of the judiciary.

This research-backed report provides a fact-checked breakdown of who Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is, the legal case behind the biryani remark, his key statements on student protests and post-retirement judicial appointments, and high-yield notes for competitive examinations.

1. Who Is Justice Ujjal Bhuyan? Profile and Judicial Career

Elevated to the Supreme Court of India on July 14, 2023, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is recognized across legal circles for his firm stance on constitutional liberties, procedural fairness, and executive accountability.

Throughout his judicial tenure, Justice Bhuyan has authored landmark rulings safeguarding personal liberty against arbitrary arrest, emphasizing that investigating agencies cannot use prolonged pre-trial incarceration as a substitute for conviction.

2. The Varanasi Boat Incident: What Triggered the "Biryani" Remark?

To understand why Justice Bhuyan cited the biryani case, one must examine the specific police investigation that unfolded in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh:

A. The March 2026 Case Chronology

• The Incident: A group of 14 young men organized a small Iftar gathering on a rented wooden boat cruising along the Ganga river in Varanasi, where they consumed chicken biryani.
• The Viral Video & FIR: After a video of the event circulated on social media, a local organization chief lodged a complaint alleging that consuming meat on the holy river hurt religious sentiments.
• Police Action & Bail Denials: Varanasi Police registered an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections relating to injuring or defiling a place of worship and promoting enmity. All 14 individuals were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 3-Month Incarceration: Lower courts repeatedly rejected their bail petitions, keeping the accused in jail for 90 days (three months) before higher judicial intervention was sought.

Justice Bhuyan highlighted this case to demonstrate how ordinary, non-criminal daily acts are increasingly criminalized, and how lower courts often fail to exercise discretion when granting bail.

3. Four Core Pillars of Justice Bhuyan's NLIU Speech

Beyond the biryani comment, Justice Bhuyan's address at the National Law Institute University covered four critical constitutional areas:

A. On Campus Protests and Environmental Activism

Justice Bhuyan observed that universities must remain spaces for critical inquiry and debate. He noted that students protesting for their academic rights or citizens voicing concern over environmental degradation are often treated like criminals, suspended, and kept in jail for 30–40 days before receiving bail.

B. On Restrictive Bail Conditions

He raised concerns about a growing judicial practice where courts grant bail but impose severe restrictions—such as barring the individual from attending public meetings, speaking to the press, or posting on digital platforms.

"Imposing such restrictive conditions severely undermines fundamental freedoms and liberty. People would be justified in asking whether, by passing such orders, the Court is sending a message: 'don't participate in public activities'?"

C. On Judicial Independence & Post-Retirement Roles

Addressing the principle of separation of powers, Justice Bhuyan delivered a direct critique of former judges and Chief Justices accepting political nominations or executive appointments shortly after retirement:

Using the metaphor of a three-legged stool, he explained:

"If two legs are in one place, the stool will fall apart. This is the fundamental principle. Therefore, when a former Chief Justice of India says he is going to the Rajya Sabha to 'bridge the gap between the judiciary and the executive,' it is fundamentally wrong... It goes against the principles of separation of powers."

4. Summary Matrix: Key Insights from the Speech

6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)