‘No law bars eating chicken over Ganga’: SC judge slams arrest of Muslim students over biryani on boat ride

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has strongly criticized the arrest of Muslim students for consuming chicken biryani during iftar on a boat ride in Uttar Pradesh, stating that no law prohibits eating chicken over the sacred Ganga river. Justice Bhuyan questioned the rationale behind the arrests, particularly the three months the students spent in jail for an act he deemed not to be an offense.

“

I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offense. It can’t be an offense…they were arrested for that very reason, and they had to remain in jail for three months.

The incident involved 14 Muslim youths arrested in March by Varanasi Police. They faced charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 298 and 299, including outraging religious feelings, promoting enmity, public nuisance, and violating water pollution control laws. Complainants alleged the students discarded chicken bones and leftovers into the river, which holds deep spiritual significance in Sanatan Dharma.

Justice Bhuyan also addressed the broader issue of dissent in a democracy. He emphasized that peaceful protest is fundamental to democratic societies, yet ordinary acts of dissent are increasingly being treated as criminal conduct. "Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalized," he stated.

“

The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of the citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised.

The judge further pointed out the paradoxical treatment of environmental activists and students. "People who come to voice their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they are criminals. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30-40 days," he observed. He added that students often face suspension, compelling them to seek court intervention to resume their studies.

“

People who come to voice their anguish over environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they are criminals. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30-40 days.

Questioning the role of courts, Justice Bhuyan wondered if restrictive bail conditions were indirectly discouraging dissent. While acknowledging that courts do grant bail, he expressed concern over the belated nature of such relief and the restrictive conditions imposed. "By such restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens not to express their dissent?" he asked. He also referenced a recent Supreme Court judgment against punitive 'bulldozer justice,' calling it welcome but overdue.

“

Though the courts are responsive and do grant bail, many a time it is belated. But it is the restrictive conditions which are imposed while granting bail that are causing the greatest concern. By such restrictive orders, are the courts indirectly telling the citizens or discouraging the citizens not to express their dissent?