SC not meant to justify executive actions denying liberty, human rights: Justice Bhuyan

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has delivered a series of pointed remarks on the role of the judiciary, underlining that the Supreme Court’s core mandate is to uphold personal liberty, human rights and constitutional principles — not to rationalise executive action that curtails freedoms.

Speaking on Sunday, 25 January at a panel discussion in Goa organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, Justice Bhuyan emphasised the need for the judiciary to speak in one coherent voice and develop consistent jurisprudence so that law is uniformly followed across courts and foreign jurisdictions are confident in cooperating with India on matters such as extradition of white-collar criminals.

He asserted that while individual perceptions on legal issues may vary, there must be no divergence on fundamental principles of law that underpin liberty and justice for all.

“The very existence of the Supreme Court is for upholding personal liberty and human rights. The Supreme Court is not established to justify executive actions denying liberty and violation of human rights,” Justice Bhuyan said, stressing the need for clarity and consistency in judicial pronouncements.

He also called on investigating agencies to bolster their credibility and avoid any perception of selective targeting — especially when political dynamics shift — linking institutional integrity with broader faith in the rule of law.

On Saturday, delivering the G.V. Pandit Memorial Lecture on 'Constitutional Morality and Democratic Governance' in Pune, Justice Bhuyan elaborated on what he regards as a key threat to judicial independence: undue influence in the judicial appointments and transfer process.

Criticising a recent Supreme Court collegium decision that noted a recommendation was changed at the Central government’s request, he said the executive has no say in the transfer and posting of judges, a matter that constitutionally falls within the judiciary’s exclusive domain.

By highlighting the recent transfer controversy in which a collegium recommendation was revised after a government request, Justice Bhuyan warned that such episodes “reveal a striking intrusion of executive influence into what is supposed to be an independent process created to render such process immune from executive and political influence”.

He described judicial independence as “non-negotiable”, observing that if judges feel external pressures — whether from the executive or other quarters — their decisions could, in effect, become predictable based on which bench hears a case, rather than on legal merit. “If we lose our credibility, nothing will be left of the judiciary,” he said, underscoring that institutional trust is as vital as legal authority.

Justice Bhuyan further explained that in India, the Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme, and that constitutional morality — adherence to core constitutional values — must guide judicial action even when it conflicts with popular or political pressures.

Taken together, his remarks across both fora reflect a broader analytical concern: preserving the judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter requires not only resistance to overt executive intervention but also vigilance against internal complacency or procedural compromises that could erode public confidence in the rule of law.

With PTI inputs