Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has underscored the intrinsic link between scientific temperament and the rule of law, asserting that arbitrary power derives sustenance from ignorance, fear, and unexamined belief. He was delivering the address at the 12th convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM) on Saturday.
Why does Justice Bhuyan consider scientific temper essential for the rule of law?
Justice Bhuyan stated that scientific temper lays the foundation for the rule of law because arbitrary power thrives on ignorance, fear, and unexamined belief. He emphasised that a society which accepts claims without evidence becomes vulnerable to misinformation and authoritarianism.
The judge articulated that science and law share a common methodological core. He observed that science is the art of reasoning and evidence-based inquiry, attributes that define the legal discipline as well. Consequently, he described science and law as partners in the constitutional journey of the republic, tasked with transposing a deeply feudal society practising graded inequality into a modern, forward-looking order.
Fundamental Duty and the University's Role
Referring to Article 51A of the Constitution, Justice Bhuyan highlighted that developing a scientific temper is a fundamental duty of every citizen. He clarified that this temperament is not confined to laboratories or scientific institutions but requires only the capacity to think rationally and base assertions on reason. He identified the university as the essential site for the germination of this temper, invoking former President Pranab Mukherjee’s vision of universities as bastions of free thinking.
On the function of academic spaces, the judge advocated for keeping windows open to the free flow of knowledge, which knows no boundaries, while exercising the caution to separate grain from chaff. He reiterated his earlier positions on free speech, dissent, and tolerance as non-negotiable values within these institutions.
Constitutional 'We' versus Politics of Exclusion
Justice Bhuyan warned against the politics of exclusion driven by competing claims and societal conflicts. He noted the tendency to fall into a binary narrative of 'us' and 'they', which he termed a false narrative. For a more just and humane society, he urged a shift towards the constitutional 'we' enshrined in the Preamble’s opening words, “We, the People of India.”
The judge explained that the genius of the constitutional 'we' lies in its refusal to efface differences. Instead, it seeks to restore unity without demanding uniformity. He affirmed that diversity is not an impediment to the constitutional project but infuses substance and meaning into it, aligning with Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s description of fraternity as the heart and soul of the constitutional vision.
Institutional vs Functional Democracy
Drawing on economist Amartya Sen’s distinction between institutional and functional democracy, Justice Bhuyan stated that democracy is not exhausted by elections and representative institutions alone. He identified the habit of public reasoning as the essence of a healthy participatory democracy, which presupposes an informed citizenry. Access to information, he concluded, remains the key to sustaining this functional dimension of democracy.
The address concluded with the observation that education, university, diversity, and public reasoning are bound by a common thread, collectively guiding the path toward a just and equitable society—the ultimate goal of the Constitution.