There is no law preventing anyone from eating chicken up the Ganges, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan said, criticizing the arrest of Muslim students for eating chicken biryani for breakfast during a boat trip on the river in Uttar Pradesh a few months ago.
Speaking at the 4th Justice J.P. Singh V. Memorial Lecture Justice Bhuyan, National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal, noted that the young man had to spend three months in jail for something that did not constitute a crime.
“I am sure that eating chicken biryani is not a crime. It cannot be a crime… They were arrested for this very reason and had to stay in prison for three months,” he said.
Varanasi police arrested 14 Muslim youths in March under Sections 298 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act on charges of inciting religious sentiments, promoting enmity, public nuisance and violating the Water Pollution Control Act. The complainants alleged that the youths were eating chicken biryani and disposing of the meat bones and food scraps directly into the sacred river, which holds deep spiritual significance in Sanatan Dharma.
Peaceful protest is central to democracy
The Supreme Court judge also said that peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, but ordinary acts of dissent are increasingly being treated as criminal behaviour.
He added: “The right to express one’s views and demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms for citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even ordinary activities are criminalized.”
Justice Bhuiyan noted that people expressing concern about the environment are being treated as criminals, and students are spending more than a month in jail due to protests on campus.
“People who come to express their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are thrown out as if they were criminals. Protesting students are arrested in universities and do not get bail for 30 to 40 days,” the judge said.
He added that students are often suspended from school as well, forcing them to resort to the courts before they can resume their education.
Courts discourage dissent?
Justice Bhuyan wondered whether the courts, through restrictive bail conditions, were also discouraging dissent.
“Although the courts respond and grant bail, it often comes too late. But it is the restrictive conditions imposed while granting bail that cause the most concern. Through these restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling or discouraging citizens not to express their opposition?” he said.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling against punitive “bulldozer justice”, Justice Bhuyan said the ruling was welcome but came “two years too late”. He also pointed to cases where defendants released on bail were prevented from attending public meetings or posting on social media, saying such conditions “severely undermine their fundamental liberties and freedoms.”
He also criticized The Bombay High Court refused to allow a demonstration in solidarity with Palestine, saying it found the court’s observations “highly amusing”. The petitioners were asked why they wanted to protest against events in Gaza rather than issues within India, he noted, adding that India traditionally recognizes Palestine and hosts a Palestinian embassy.
