Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Ganga Boat Iftar Arrests

The Ridiculousness of Overzealous Policing: Biryani Boat Ride Behind Bars
In a democracy that prides itself on freedom, eating chicken biryani on a boat shouldn’t get you three months in jail. But that is the harsh reality that awaits some young Muslim students in Varanasi, who were arrested for having a meal on the Ganga during Ramzan.

“The sheer absurdity of it all", Supreme Court justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, lambasting the incident at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal. He pointed out with a sharp disbelief that there was no law in the country barring anyone from eating chicken over the Ganga. The fact that these young people were left to languish for nearly three months in detention over a simple meal points to an increasingly disturbing trajectory of overweening policing and institutional paranoia, turning mundane personal choices into criminal offences.

The narrowing space for dissent and peaceful protest

Justice Bhuyan’s remarks were not merely about a boat ride. They cut to the heart of the way civil liberties are treated in present-day India. "The space for alternate views in public is shrinking perilously," he warned. Peaceful protests, environmental activism and campus demonstrations – all of which should be celebrated as the lifeblood of a healthy democracy – are increasingly being branded criminal.

Heavy-handed crackdowns and long detentions of ordinary acts of dissent send a chilling message to the citizenry. The right to question, to debate and to gather peacefully is not a gift from the state; it is the lifeblood of a free society. But now citizens are walking on eggshells, wondering whether their everyday choices or lawful protests could make them the next target of the state machinery.

The High Cost of Strict Bail and Introspection

The critique also exposed the courtroom mechanics that follow these wrongful arrests. Justice Bhuyan observed the agonising delays in higher courts providing relief and the stringent bail conditions such as bans on social media or speaking in public, which, in effect, penalise a person even before trial.

He urged the legal fraternity and students to critically analyse court verdicts instead of just praising them. It was a stark reminder that the health of institutions depends on constant and fearless scrutiny. In a time when the boundaries of personal freedom seem ever more fragile, the judiciary’s willingness to consider these excesses is a vital signal of hope for a more just and tolerant future.