Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court said entrenched social divisions continue to challenge constitutional morality even after 75 years of Independence.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality And Role Of District Judiciary”, organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy, he observed that day-to-day conduct often falls short of the Constitution’s benchmark.
Examples Cited: Housing Denial, Bias In Mid-Day Meals
To illustrate the gap, Justice Bhuyan recalled an incident involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was searching for accommodation. According to him, the student approached a landlady who ran a working women’s hostel in her building in South Delhi. However, after the student disclosed her surname, the landlady allegedly refused accommodation and asked her to look elsewhere.
He also referred to an example from Odisha linked to the government’s mid-day meal scheme. Under the programme, women—mostly associated with anganwadi centres—cook meals for schoolchildren. Justice Bhuyan said some parents objected and stated they would not allow their children to eat food prepared by Dalit women.
Calling these incidents “just the tip of the iceberg”, he said they reflect how deep social faultlines remain.
Constitutional Morality: From Naz Foundation To Navtej Singh Johar
Justice Bhuyan explained constitutional morality as the standard the Constitution expects citizens and institutions to follow. In contrast, he said community morality often conflicts with constitutional values.
He traced the idea through key rulings, beginning with Naz Foundation v Union of India, where the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 IPC to the extent it criminalised homosexual relationships. In that judgment, the High Court held that popular morality cannot curtail Article 21. He noted that the Supreme Court later overturned the ruling in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v Naz Foundation. The legal position shifted again in Navtej Singh Johar, where a Constitution Bench reaffirmed constitutional morality as part of transformative constitutionalism.
District Judiciary: First Point Of Access To Justice
For most litigants, Justice Bhuyan said, trial courts are the first point of access to justice. Accordingly, he urged careful attention to core processes such as recording evidence and hearing bail matters.
He also called for respect for the dignity of trial judges. Appellate courts, he said, refine and clarify law on the factual foundation laid by trial courts. In this context, he noted that several eminent judges began their careers in the district judiciary, including Justice H.K. Khanna, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi.
Article 227: “Shield, Not A Sword”
On supervisory powers, Justice Bhuyan said the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 should function as a protective mechanism rather than a punitive one.
According to him, Article 227 is meant to correct grave jurisdictional errors. At the same time, it should not become a route to reassess factual appreciation or replace a trial judge’s discretion with that of the High Court.
Telangana Judiciary: Gender Representation And Wider Inclusion
Justice Bhuyan highlighted Telangana’s progress on gender representation. He said the sanctioned strength of the Telangana Judicial Service is 655 posts, with 478 officers currently working. Of these, 283 are women, which he said is above 50%.
In addition, he pointed to representation from marginalised communities. He said 76 judicial officers belong to Scheduled Castes, 46 to Scheduled Tribes, and 25 to the minority community. He further stated that five judicial officers with disabilities joined pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025).
Justice Bhuyan said barriers such as language, constitutional or legal ignorance, and illiteracy can distance people from the justice system. Therefore, he argued, stronger representation of women, marginalised communities, and persons with disabilities can make courts more accessible. He also said he would welcome a sexual minority or transgender person in the judiciary, and urged an inclusive institution that reflects “all the colours of the rainbow.”
Three-Year Bar Practice Requirement: Impact On Women “Time Will Tell”
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the requirement of a minimum three years of practice as an advocate for entry-level judicial posts. While he said the rule may provide practical exposure, he added that its impact on women aspirants remains uncertain.
He noted that the early years at the Bar can be demanding and financially unstable, especially for those without established backgrounds or those from the mofussil. Moreover, he said women—particularly from rural areas and small towns—may face interruptions due to social constraints or family pressure. For that reason, he said the system must watch how the requirement affects women’s entry into judicial service.
