Former Supreme Court judge Sudhanshu Dhulia has underscored the essential role of dissent in academic spaces, stating that a university is meant for dissent. In a wide-ranging conversation, he reflected on fundamental rights, the death penalty, linguistic diversity, media scrutiny of the judiciary, and the process of judicial appointments. His remarks offer a considered perspective from a judge who served on the apex court for over three years before retiring.
Universities as Spaces of Free Inquiry
Justice Dhulia emphasised that universities must remain places where dissenting voices can be raised freely. He observed that if dissent is suppressed, a university ceases to function as one. Drawing from his own student days, he recalled how campuses responded to distant events with solidarity and protest, viewing such engagement as a sign of intellectual awakening.
He described the university as a site of continuous conversation, extending beyond classrooms into informal spaces such as corridors and libraries. In his view, the capacity to question and disagree forms part of the institution’s core purpose. This perspective aligns with a broader constitutional understanding that values the free exchange of ideas as necessary for a healthy democracy.
Tolerance and Fundamental Rights
Throughout the discussion, Justice Dhulia returned to the theme of tolerance as central to the enjoyment of fundamental rights. He noted that the ability to live with disagreement is not merely a social virtue but an essential feature of constitutional democracy. Intolerance, he suggested, begins to undermine the framework when differing opinions are treated as threats rather than legitimate differences.
His judicial record reflects a consistent concern for dignity and access. In earlier cases, he had emphasised that educational spaces should not become sites of exclusion and that discipline must not come at the cost of freedom or dignity. These principles informed his approach to questions of individual rights within institutional settings.
Views on the Death Penalty
On the death penalty, Justice Dhulia observed that the punishment remains in force in a limited number of countries, including some with significantly different legal and political systems. He noted the global trend towards abolition, with a substantial majority of nations having moved away from capital punishment. While he did not call for immediate change, his remarks situated the Indian debate within a wider international conversation about the purpose and limits of the criminal justice system.
The discussion touched on whether the award of the death penalty has become more dependent on the individual approach of judges. Justice Dhulia’s comments reflected an awareness of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and the need for careful, consistent application of sentencing principles.
Language, Diversity and Constitutional Values
Justice Dhulia also addressed questions of language and cultural diversity. He has previously authored judgments recognising the constitutional status of languages listed in the Eighth Schedule and affirming that official language policies need not exclude the use of additional languages for communication and inclusion. In the interview, he reiterated the importance of linguistic pluralism in a country as diverse as India.
His approach treats language as a tool of communication and belonging rather than a marker of exclusion. This perspective connects to the broader constitutional commitment to fraternity and the recognition that India’s unity is strengthened, not weakened, by its diversity.
Judicial Appointments and the Collegium System
On the subject of judicial appointments, Justice Dhulia acknowledged that the collegium system requires certain improvements and greater transparency. He described the need for changes in the manner in which names are recommended for the High Courts and the Supreme Court as a matter for larger discussion and debate.
At the same time, he stressed that once the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended names, those appointments should not be delayed or blocked without strong reasons. In ordinary circumstances, he said, recommendations should proceed. Only in the rarest of cases, supported by serious adverse material, should the process be halted. He cautioned against treating collegium recommendations as open to indefinite delay.
These remarks come against the backdrop of periodic concerns over vacancies in the higher judiciary and the time taken for appointments to be finalised. Justice Dhulia’s position seeks to balance the need for institutional refinement with the imperative of timely filling of judicial posts.
Media Scrutiny and Live-Streamed Courts
The conversation also touched on the impact of live-streaming court proceedings and heightened media attention. Justice Dhulia noted that even judges who remain away from social media feel the effects of public discussion, as information circulates through colleagues and wider networks. He recognised that greater visibility brings both accountability and new pressures on the judicial process.
A Judge’s Broader Perspective
Across these themes, a consistent thread emerges: the value of openness, reasoned disagreement and institutional restraint. Whether discussing campuses, sentencing, language or appointments, Justice Dhulia returned to the idea that constitutional democracy depends on the capacity to accommodate difference without suppressing it.
His reflections carry weight precisely because they come from a judge who participated in significant constitutional benches and authored opinions that often sought to balance competing principles. By speaking after retirement, he has offered an unencumbered assessment of issues that continue to shape India’s legal and public life.
The emphasis on universities as spaces for dissent serves as a reminder that the habits of democratic citizenship are cultivated in institutions that allow questioning and debate. In an era of polarised public discourse, such reminders retain practical importance. Justice Dhulia’s intervention underscores that the health of constitutional values depends not only on formal guarantees but on the everyday practices of tolerance, conversation and institutional integrity.
Read more – themenuspark.com , scorematchup.com
