SC Judge Criticizes Arbitrary Arrests Under BNS, Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest
Contents4
Hindustan Times - India · 27 Jul 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan condemned the arrest of Muslim students for eating chicken biryani on the Ganga, highlighting misuse of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions and erosion of democratic dissent rights.
Key points
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 298 and 299 were invoked to arrest 14 Muslim youths in Varanasi for allegedly 'outraging religious feelings' by consuming chicken biryani on the Ganga, demonstrating potential misuse of new penal provisions.
Right to Peaceful Protest: Justice Bhuyan emphasized that peaceful protest and dissent are fundamental freedoms under Article 19, criticizing increasing criminalization of ordinary activities and environmental activism.
Judicial Delay in Bail: The judge noted that while courts eventually grant bail, restrictive conditions (like social media bans) and delays (30-40 days for students) effectively chill constitutional rights.
Bulldozer Justice Reference: Justice Bhuyan cited SC's 2024 ruling against punitive demolitions as a positive but delayed intervention in checking executive overreach against dissenters.
[GS2-Polity] The case reflects tensions between Fundamental Rights (Articles 19-21) and reasonable restrictions, with Justice Bhuyan arguing current enforcement disproportionately targets marginalized groups.
Environmental Protection Laws were misapplied in this case, as the Water Pollution Control Act was invoked despite lack of evidence of actual pollution - connecting to GS3 environmental governance challenges.
[GS4-Ethics] The incident raises questions about police impartiality and institutional bias in law enforcement, particularly regarding minority communities and cultural practices.
Judicial Activism: The speech signals higher judiciary's growing concern about lower courts and police misusing new laws to suppress constitutional rights, potentially foreshadowing future interventions.
Way Forward: India needs clear guidelines on proportionality in policing protests, mandatory sensitivity training for law enforcement on cultural rights, and time-bound bail procedures for non-violent offenses to protect democratic freedoms.
Key terms
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- India's new penal code replacing IPC in 2023, containing Sections 298-299 on religious offenses. UPSC relevance lies in its broader definitions of 'hurt feelings' and 'public nuisance' that risk misuse against minorities and dissenters, requiring judicial scrutiny of application.
- Article 19(1)(a)
- Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, including peaceful protest. Crucial for GS2 questions on balancing public order with dissent, especially regarding student protests and environmental activism that face increasing restrictions.
- Bulldozer Justice
- Term for punitive demolitions of properties belonging to accused persons without due process. SC's 2024 ruling against it established important precedent on proportionality in state action, relevant for GS2 governance and GS4 ethics questions.
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- Key environmental legislation misapplied in this case. For UPSC, understanding its Section 24 prohibiting pollutant discharge into water bodies is crucial for GS3 environmental governance and conflict with cultural practices.
Practice question
Critically examine the implications of the recent Supreme Court observations on the misuse of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions against peaceful dissent, with reference to the arrest of Muslim students in Varanasi. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Article 19(1)(a) Bulldozer Justice Water Pollution Control Act Judicial Activism Fundamental Rights Reasonable Restrictions Institutional Bias
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the Varanasi case where BNS provisions were used against Muslim students, highlighting Justice Bhuyan's observations about misuse of laws and erosion of democratic rights.
Constitutional Rights vs. Legal Provisions
Conflict between Article 19(1)(a) rights to peaceful protest and BNS Sections 298-299 on religious offenses
Judicial concern about disproportionate application of laws against marginalized groups
Impact on fundamental freedoms and chilling effect on dissent
Governance Challenges
Misapplication of environmental laws (Water Pollution Act) without evidence
Delays in bail procedures effectively punishing the accused before trial
Need for police reforms and sensitivity training to prevent institutional bias
Judicial Role in Protecting Rights
Reference to SC's 2024 bulldozer justice ruling as precedent against executive overreach
Need for clearer guidelines on proportionality in policing protests
Judicial activism as check on misuse of new penal provisions
Conclusion
Suggest balanced approach: protecting religious sentiments while safeguarding constitutional rights, with reforms in law enforcement practices and time-bound bail procedures for non-violent offenses.
Fact check
Issues found Overall severity: medium
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 298 and 299 were invoked to arrest 14 Muslim youths in Varanasi for allegedly 'outraging religious feelings' by consuming chicken biryani on the Ganga, demonstrating potential misuse of new penal provisions.
The source text confirms the arrest under BNS sections 298 and 299 for outraging religious feelings, but it does not specify the number of youths arrested as 14. Severity: medium
Judicial Delay in Bail: The judge noted that while courts eventually grant bail, restrictive conditions (like social media bans) and delays (30-40 days for students) effectively chill constitutional rights.
The source text mentions students spending over a month in jail for campus protests, but it does not specify the exact delay of 30-40 days for the biryani case. Severity: medium
Bulldozer Justice Reference: Justice Bhuyan cited SC's 2024 ruling against punitive demolitions as a positive but delayed intervention in checking executive overreach against dissenters.
The source text mentions the SC's 2024 judgment against punitive 'bulldozer justice' but does not specify it as a ruling against punitive demolitions. Severity: low
Environmental Protection Laws were misapplied in this case, as the Water Pollution Control Act was invoked despite lack of evidence of actual pollution - connecting to GS3 environmental governance challenges.
The source text mentions the Water Pollution Control Act was invoked, but it does not explicitly state there was a lack of evidence of actual pollution. Severity: medium