Former Supreme Court Judge Sudhanshu Dhulia emphasizes the critical role of tolerance in constitutional law and argues that universities must remain sanctuaries for unfettered dissent to preserve democracy.
- Justice Dhulia advocates for the protection of individual choice over institutional overreach, particularly regarding religious attire.
- He highlights the concept of 'tolerance' as a foundational pillar of the Indian Constitution.
- The judge warns against the erasure of linguistic diversity, citing the historical nuance of Hindustani.
- He asserts that universities are essential spaces for intellectual dissent and critical thinking.
In an extensive and profound conversation with The Indian Express, former Supreme Court Judge Sudhanshu Dhulia has reflected on the intersection of law, humanism, and individual liberty. Known for his commitment to protecting constitutional choices, Justice Dhulia’s trajectory from the Allahabad High Court to the apex court has been marked by a consistent effort to prevent institutional overreach from stifling personal freedom.
The Philosophy of Tolerance and the Hijab Debate
Addressing the ongoing controversy surrounding the hijab in educational institutions, Justice Dhulia pointed toward the fundamental constitutional value of tolerance. Referencing the landmark case of Bijoy Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, he argued that Indian culture and the Constitution are built on the spirit of coexistence. While clarifying that he does not personally advocate for the hijab, he stressed that the legal battle is not about the garment itself, but about the choice of the woman to wear or reject it.
He expressed his disagreement with the recent Allahabad High Court decision to reject a student's plea to wear a headscarf, arguing that the emphasis should remain on the individual's right to choose, rather than rigid institutional rules.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that Justice Dhulia's perspective represents a critical judicial shift toward 'human-centric jurisprudence.' By prioritizing the 'right to choose' over 'institutional uniformity,' his views challenge the growing trend of state-mandated cultural homogeneity in public spaces.
"Our religion preaches tolerance, our culture teaches tolerance, our Constitution of India practices tolerance; let us not dilute it."
Linguistic Pluralism and the 'Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb'
Justice Dhulia also delved into the sensitive issue of language politics in India, specifically the tensions between Marathi and non-Marathi speakers. He recalled the Constituent Assembly debates, noting that India was nearly at a breaking point over the national language. He lamented the perception of Urdu as the language of an 'enemy country' following the Partition, which led to the erosion of Hindustani—the beautiful blend of Hindi and Urdu.
Drawing from his experience as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, where he encountered the diverse tribal languages of Nagaland, he described India as a "linguistic civilization." He argued that language is a manifestation of culture and should never be used as a tool for division.
The Sanctity of Academic Dissent
A central theme of Justice Dhulia's discourse is the role of universities. He contends that the primary purpose of a university is to foster an environment where students and faculty can engage in fierce, unfettered dissent. Without the ability to question authority and challenge prevailing norms, universities cease to be centers of learning and instead become tools of indoctrination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What was Justice Dhulia's core argument regarding the hijab?
His argument was based on the 'right to choice' and the constitutional value of tolerance, rather than a support for the hijab as a religious garment per se.
Q2: Why does Justice Dhulia believe dissent is necessary in universities?
He believes that intellectual growth and democratic health depend on the ability to question and disagree, which is the fundamental purpose of higher education.
