Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India said Muslims still endure housing discrimination purely due to identity. He noted such exclusion reflects deep social prejudice that contradicts constitutional promises of equality and non-discrimination for all citizens.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a judge of the Supreme Court, stressed that Muslims continue to face housing discrimination purely on the basis of their identity.
He highlighted that such exclusions reflect deep-seated social prejudices that run contrary to constitutional values, even as the nation guarantees equality and non-discrimination.
Speaking at a Telangana Judges Association, Telangana State Judicial Academy seminar in Hyderabad titled “Constitutional Morality and Role of District Judiciary,” he warned that these discriminatory practices reveal a gap between constitutional ideals and everyday social conduct.
He asserted that the Constitution upholds human dignity, equality, and fraternity, and that denying housing on the basis of religion contradicts these guarantees.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan shared a personal incident to show how discrimination still exists in society.
He narrated how his daughter’s friend was looking for a place to stay in Delhi. She met a landlady who ran a working women’s hostel in her South Delhi building.
The landlady first asked the student for her name. Since the name sounded neutral, she asked again about her surname. After hearing the surname, which showed her Muslim identity, the landlady immediately refused to give her a room and told her to look somewhere else.
Justice Bhuyan also mentioned another incident from Odisha involving the mid-day meal programme. He said some parents protested against their children eating food prepared by Dalit women hired as cooks under the scheme.
They demanded that their children should not be given such meals.
While referring to these two examples, Justice Bhuyan said they reflect how deeply social divisions continue to exist even today.
He stated,
“The above two are just random examples, just the tip of the iceberg revealing how deep the societal faultlines are. In fact, this is a mirror to us showing how distant we still are from the benchmark of constitutional morality even after seventy five years into our republic.”
He further clarified what he meant by constitutional morality. According to him, it is a standard that both public institutions and citizens must follow. Justice Bhuyan said,
“Constitutional morality is the benchmark which the Constitution expects all of us to adhere to. The constitutional objective is fraternity and brotherhood.”
Justice Bhuyan also encouraged judges to examine issues through the lens of constitutional values instead of being guided by dominant social views.
Justice Bhuyan argued that constitutional morality should take precedence over prevailing social or majoritarian moral standards when they clash, noting that the Constitution protects individual rights even if public opinion does not align.
On the judiciary’s role, he said courts must defend fundamental rights and ensure constitutional protections are not eroded by entrenched biases in society.
He described the Constitution as a transformative instrument meant to steer governance and social life toward justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The persistence of housing discrimination, he noted, shows that these aims have not yet been fully realized.
Justice Bhuyan reiterated that adherence to constitutional values is essential to counter discriminatory practices and to make constitutional rights effective in daily life.
Reflecting on the doctrinal evolution, he cited the Delhi High Court’s Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which struck down Section 377 to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations. Although that ruling was subsequently set-aside , its underlying principle was later affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized homosexuality and reinforced constitutional morality as a guiding light.
Further emphasizing that courts focus on constitutionality rather than popular sentiment, he stated,
“In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view,”
Turning to district courts, he described them as the primary interface for most litigants, noting that for many people justice begins and ends at the district level.
He called for meticulous record-keeping of evidence and careful handling of bail matters, while urging respect for the dignity of trial judges.
He added that the High Court serves as a mentor to the trial courts, and that Article 227’s supervisory power is “a shield, not a sword,” intended to correct serious jurisdictional errors rather than reweigh facts or substitute judicial discretion.
Regarding diversity within the judiciary, Justice Bhuyan highlighted Telangana’s progress in gender representation. Of the 655 sanctioned posts in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are filled, with 283 women among them surpassing 50 percent.
He also pointed to representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and the recent inclusion of judicial officers with disabilities following the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services.
The institution, he urged, must mirror the diversity of India and be “a rainbow institution” with all colors represented. He even expressed openness to greater inclusion of sexual minorities and transgender persons.
On the recent restoration of the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial posts, he acknowledged that while the rule offers practical exposure, it could pose barriers especially for women applicants from rural or economically challenged backgrounds.
He noted that the early, financially unstable years of practice and social pressures may influence women’s entry into judicial services, and that the long-term effects of this rule deserve careful monitoring.