Supreme Court Justice Bhuyan: Scientific Temper Guards Against Arbitrary Power

• Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that scientific temper is crucial for the rule of law, as arbitrary power thrives on ignorance and fear.
• He delivered this address at the 12th convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM).
• Justice Bhuyan warned that societies lacking critical inquiry are vulnerable to misinformation, authoritarianism, and unjust practices.
• He highlighted Article 51A of the Constitution, which mandates the development of scientific temper as a fundamental duty for all citizens.
• The Justice emphasized that both science and law are evidence-based disciplines rooted in reasoning, with universities playing a key role in fostering rational thought.

This perspective from Supreme Court Justice Bhuyan on scientific temper provides a philosophical underpinning for challenging arbitrary executive or administrative actions, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to rational, evidence-based decision-making.

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently delivered a significant address at the 12th convocation ceremony of the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM), where he underscored the critical role of scientific temper in upholding the rule of law. Justice Bhuyan articulated that a society's capacity for critical inquiry directly impacts its vulnerability to unchecked authority, asserting that arbitrary power finds fertile ground in environments characterized by ignorance, fear, and unquestioned beliefs.

His remarks highlighted a fundamental connection between a rational approach to understanding the world and the integrity of legal systems. The Justice emphasized that the foundation for robust legal governance is laid when individuals cultivate a mindset of questioning and evidence-based reasoning, thereby resisting forces that seek to impose power without accountability. This perspective from Supreme Court Justice Bhuyan on scientific temper provides a philosophical underpinning for challenging arbitrary executive or administrative actions, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to rational, evidence-based decision-making.

Justice Bhuyan further elaborated on the societal consequences when a culture of inquiry diminishes. He warned that a populace that readily accepts assertions without demanding substantiating evidence becomes susceptible to superstitious beliefs and is easily misled by misinformation. Such a society, he noted, is inherently vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Moreover, the Justice pointed out that a society that shies away from asking difficult questions risks succumbing to authoritarian tendencies. He also cautioned against the uncritical reverence for tradition, explaining that treating established practices as beyond scrutiny can impede necessary reforms, particularly in areas where existing customs perpetuate injustice. These observations collectively illustrate how the absence of rational thought within the judiciary and society at large can pave the way for arbitrary power to flourish.

In his address, Justice Bhuyan drew attention to Article 51A of the Indian Constitution, which enshrines the development of scientific temper as a fundamental duty for every citizen. He clarified that this duty does not necessitate a background in scientific research or laboratory work, but rather calls for the cultivation of rational thought—a capacity to base one's ideas and statements on reason and evidence. The Justice stressed that the seeds of this rational approach must be nurtured within educational institutions, particularly universities.

He also drew a compelling parallel between the disciplines of science and law, noting that both are fundamentally arts of reasoning. Just as scientific inquiry relies on empirical evidence, the legal process demands an evidence-based approach to ascertain facts and deliver justice. This intrinsic link between science and law, as articulated in the rule of law India speech, underscores the judiciary's commitment to rational thought and its constitutional duty to promote scientific temper, offering a powerful framework for legal professionals to advocate against arbitrary actions.

This address by Supreme Court Justice Bhuyan underscores the judiciary's commitment to rational, evidence-based decision-making and the constitutional duty of scientific temper (Article 51A), providing a philosophical underpinning that lawyers can draw upon when challenging arbitrary executive or administrative actions.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench