Society must cultivate habit of inquiry: Justice Bhuyan

1. At a Glance

• Core idea: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that a society which accepts claims without evidence, fears questions and treats tradition as beyond question becomes vulnerable to misinformation, defenceless against authoritarianism, and unable to reform unjust practices [1].
• Constitutional anchor: Scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform is a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(h), Part IV-A [2].
• His main point: scientific temper should not stay inside laboratories. It is "an attitude of inquiry and openness to examination", and it has to take root in the university [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: it brings together Fundamental Duties (GS-II), academic freedom and student rights (GS-II), science and society (GS-III), and the ethics of rational public discourse (GS-IV).

2. Why in the News

• 31 October 2026 (Saturday): Justice Bhuyan spoke at the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya. The Hindu reported it on 1 November 2026 (Chennai edition, p. 16; byline Krishnadas Rajagopal) [1].
• Context: Gen Z dissatisfaction over the NEET 2026 paper leaks, student unrest, agitations from IIT Bombay to several National Law Schools, and a demand to restore student union elections at Jamia Millia Islamia [1].
• Earlier speech on the same theme: at National Law University, Delhi he said that threatening students with punitive action for asking questions or holding a different view is unconstitutional, and that universities should be places where established positions can be examined and questioned [5].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1946: Jawaharlal Nehru popularised the phrase "scientific temper" in The Discovery of India [unverified — standard reference; not in retrieved sources].
• 1976: the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Part IV-A / Article 51A, which includes clause (h) [2].
• 3 January 1977: Part IV-A came into force, as a Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted in a 2025 judgment [3].
• 2002: the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 amended Article 51A [2]. It added clause (k), the parents' duty to provide education to children aged 6–14 [the clause detail is standard reference].
• 2025: Karnataka Bill No. 54 of 2025 cites Article 51A(h) and describes scientific temper as a fundamental duty of every citizen, in the context of school curricula [4].
• 2026: Justice Bhuyan's speeches at NLU Delhi [5] and USTM, Meghalaya [1].
• Predecessors and related bodies: the Swaran Singh Committee (1976) recommended adding Fundamental Duties, and the Verma Committee (1999) worked on operationalising them [unverified — standard reference].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Provision	Article 51A(h): develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform [2]
Part	Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) [2][3]
Inserted by	42nd Amendment Act, 1976 [2]
In force from	3 January 1977 [3]
Later amendment to Art. 51A	86th Amendment Act, 2002 [2]
Nature	Non-justiciable (no direct court enforcement), but courts use it to interpret laws and the State uses it to guide policy [general constitutional principle; unverified]
Related clause used by the SC	Art. 51A(g), the environmental duty, relied on in a 2025 Oka–Bhuyan judgment [3]
Speaker	Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge, Supreme Court of India [1]
Venue of the 2026 speech	University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Article 51A(h) is a citizen's duty, but the judge treats it as a civic capacity to think rationally "as members of a civil and political society" [1].
• Penalising students for questioning is described as unconstitutional [5]. This links Art. 51A(h) to Art. 19(1)(a), freedom of speech [interpretive link].
• The Supreme Court itself uses Part IV-A in interpretation, for example Art. 51A(g) in environmental adjudication [3].

Social

• Fear of questions and treating tradition as beyond question block reform of unjust practices [1].
• He warned against "us versus them" narratives [1], which bears on social cohesion and polarisation.
• Youth discontent (NEET 2026 leaks, campus agitations) is the backdrop against which he locates the need for an inquiring citizenry [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Society should demand empirical evidence when public discourse relies on emotional resonance and unverified assertions [1]. This is relevant to misinformation and post-truth politics.
• An inquiring public is a check on authoritarianism because it keeps power accountable [1].

Educational / Administrative

• "The germination has to take place in the university" [1]. This calls for academic freedom, campus democracy and functioning student unions (the Jamia demand) [1].
• States are building 51A(h) into school curricula, for example the Karnataka Bill of 2025 [4].

Scientific / Technological

• Scientific temper is a method and an attitude, not a body of knowledge. It "cannot happen overnight" [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 16 May 2025: a Supreme Court judgment (2025 INSC 718) by a bench including Justice Bhuyan referred to Part IV-A and its effective date of 3 January 1977 [3].
• 2025: Karnataka Legislative Assembly Bill No. 54 of 2025 invokes Art. 51A(h) for school curricula [4].
• 2026: Justice Bhuyan's NLU Delhi speech: punishing students for asking questions is unconstitutional [5].
• 2026: NEET 2026 paper leaks; agitations at IIT Bombay and National Law Schools; demand to restore Jamia student union elections [1].
• 31 October 2026: USTM Meghalaya address on cultivating a habit of inquiry [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform is a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(h) [2].
• Fundamental Duties are in Part IV-A of the Constitution [2].
• Article 51A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 [2].
• Part IV-A took effect on 3 January 1977 [3].
• Article 51A was later amended by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002 [2].
• Protection of the environment is the duty under Art. 51A(g), not 51A(h) [3].
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan gave the "habit of inquiry" address at the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya [1].
• Justice Bhuyan called scientific temper "an attitude of inquiry and openness to examination" [1].
• He said that punishing students for asking questions is unconstitutional (NLU Delhi speech) [5].
• Karnataka Bill No. 54 of 2025 cites Art. 51A(h) in the context of school curricula [4].
• Fundamental Duties are not directly enforceable in court [general principle; unverified].

8. Why a Duty With No Penalty Rarely Changes Behaviour

• Courts will not order anyone to follow Article 51A(h)
• Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable. Non-justiciable means no court can directly force a citizen or the government to perform them.
• In 2017, a petitioner asked the Supreme Court to make the government act on the Justice J.S. Verma Committee's recommendations on Fundamental Duties. The Court refused and asked: how can a court direct the government to implement fundamental duties? It told the petitioner to go to the government instead [10].

• So a speech from the bench, like Justice Bhuyan's [1], can persuade people. It cannot command them.

• The duty only works when the State turns it into a law or a syllabus

• Article 51A(h) has real effect when a legislature writes it into something enforceable, such as a school curriculum law. Karnataka's Bill No. 54 of 2025 does this [4].
• In a 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court found that a state education law's curriculum goals were pari materia with Part IV-A, meaning they covered substantially the same ground as the Fundamental Duties [12].

• Why this matters: the duty is written for citizens, but in practice it is carried out by the State. If the State does nothing, the duty stays a slogan.

• The real problem in the speech is the institution, not the citizen

• Justice Bhuyan's complaint is about universities threatening students with punishment for asking questions [5].
• A duty placed on the student does nothing to restrain the university that punishes them. Only Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech, which courts can enforce, offers the student real protection.

9. The Counter-Case: Should the State Decide What Counts as Superstition?

• The strongest objection
• Article 51A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment of 1976 [2], during the Emergency. Critics see that timing as an attempt to talk about citizens' obligations at the very moment their rights were suspended.

• Laws that put 'scientific temper' into practice let the State decide which belief is 'superstition'. That can intrude on Article 25, freedom of religion, and fall more heavily on some communities than on others.

• What the objection gets right

• When a judge says tradition must not be 'beyond question' [1], someone still has to draw the line. If the government draws it, inquiry can become one more instruction from above. That is the opposite of what the speech wants.

• Why it does not defeat the case

• The laws that exist punish harmful acts, not beliefs. Maharashtra's 2013 Act lists specific banned practices in a schedule, such as human sacrifice and exploitative 'black magic' [6].
• The same Act has a savings clause, a section that keeps certain activities outside the law. It protects religious worship, festivals and astrological advice [6].

• Penalties range from six months to seven years in prison, with fines of up to Rs 50,000 [6]. They are aimed at fraud and physical harm, not at prayer.

• Honest conclusion: 51A(h) is safest as a check on the use of power: demand evidence from those who make claims, including the government. It becomes risky when it is used to police private faith.

10. Why Anti-Superstition Laws Come Late and Stay Local

• It took a murder to get a law passed
• Narendra Dabholkar, a Maharashtra campaigner against superstition, was shot dead in 2013. Two years later, the murder was still unsolved [9].
• Maharashtra's Act came only after his killing [6][9].

• Why it matters: the people who practise the 'habit of inquiry' Justice Bhuyan praises [1] can face real physical danger, and the State was slow to protect them.

• Passing a law is not the same as starting it

• Karnataka's Act was passed in 2017. It was notified, meaning formally brought into force, only in January 2020, more than two years later [7].

• During that gap, the law existed on paper but could not be used against anyone.

• Only a few states have such a law, so protection depends on where you live

• Public order is a State subject, so each state decides for itself. The result is a patchwork, with most states having no specific law.
• In 2013, Dabholkar's organisation, the Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (ANS), demanded a national law against black magic [8]. Down To Earth has also argued that the whole country needs an anti-superstition law [11]. No central law exists yet.

11. What the Speech Asks of Universities, Parliament and the Government

• Universities and regulators: stop punishing students for asking questions
• Justice Bhuyan said that threatening students with punishment for questioning is unconstitutional [5].
• Universities should rewrite their disciplinary codes so that a different opinion or a peaceful question is not treated as misconduct. Only violence or disruption should be.

• Student union elections, such as those demanded at Jamia [1], give students a legitimate channel for disagreement. They also make sudden agitations less likely.

• Union government: act on the Verma Committee's work

• The Supreme Court has said it is for the government, not the courts, to put the Verma Committee's recommendations on Fundamental Duties into practice [10].

• The Ministry of Education can do that through teacher training and inquiry-based syllabi. Karnataka's 2025 Bill is a model that already exists [4].

• Parliament: consider a central model law on harmful superstitious practices

• Base it on the Maharashtra Act's structure: a clear schedule of banned acts, plus a savings clause that protects worship [6].

• This answers the ANS demand for national coverage [8] while still protecting faith.

• Everyone in public life: show the evidence

• The speech's warning about 'emotional resonance and unverified assertions' [1] applies to governments and officials too. They should publish the data behind their decisions so that citizens have something to check.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Report/Committee: Justice J.S. Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties (1999). In 2017 the Supreme Court refused to order its implementation and left it to the government [10]
• Law/Case: Article 51A(h) with Article 19(1)(a). Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 [6]. Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017, notified in 2020 [7]
• Data: Karnataka's anti-superstition Act came into force more than two years after it was passed (2017 to January 2020) [7]
• Comparison: Maharashtra's Act bans specific harmful acts but protects worship, festivals and astrology through a savings clause. It punishes harm, not belief [6]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Indian Constitution: significant provisions (Fundamental Duties); Education; issues relating to youth; role of the judiciary.
• GS-III: Science and Technology: awareness and its role in society.
• GS-IV: Ethics: values in public discourse, rationality, critical thinking, freedom of expression.
• GS-I: Society: communalism and polarisation ("us versus them").
• Essay: "A society that fears questions fears its own future."

Question stems:

1. "Scientific temper is not confined to laboratories but is a civic virtue." Discuss the relevance of Article 51A(h) in countering misinformation in India. (GS-II, 15 marks)
2. Critically examine whether Fundamental Duties, though non-justiciable, can shape university governance and academic freedom. (GS-II)
3. "A society that treats tradition as beyond question fails to reform unjust practices." Examine with reference to social reform in India. (GS-IV / Essay)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Fundamental Duties (Art. 51A(a)–(k)): the parent topic, covering all 11 duties, committees and the debate on enforceability.
• Art. 19(1)(a) and academic freedom: the constitutional basis for the right of students to question.
• Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024: the legal response to paper leaks such as NEET.
• Misinformation and the IT Rules / fact-checking: the governance side of the "demand evidence" argument.
• Anti-superstition laws (Maharashtra 2013, Karnataka 2017): state laws that operationalise scientific temper.
• Student union elections and the Lyngdoh Committee (2006): campus democracy, linked to the Jamia demand.
• NEP 2020: critical thinking and inquiry-based learning in the curriculum.
• National Science Day (28 February): commemorates the Raman Effect and is used for public science outreach.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Scientific temper (Polity): This is the Article 51A(h) duty the whole speech is about, and Nehru popularised the phrase.
• Fundamental duties (Polity): Article 51A(h) is one of the Fundamental Duties. Revise their origin, list and non-enforceability.
• 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 (Polity): This amendment inserted Part IV-A, so it is a likely source of factual questions.
• Misinformation (Polity): The judge warns that societies which accept claims without evidence become vulnerable to misinformation.
• Authoritarianism (Polity): He says an uninquiring society is defenceless against authoritarianism, so know how unaccountable power works.
• Freedom of speech and expression (Polity): Punishing students for asking questions is called unconstitutional, which links to Article 19(1)(a) and its limits.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• 51A(h) vs 51A(g): (h) is scientific temper; (g) is the environment and compassion for living creatures [2][3].
• 42nd vs 86th Amendment: the 42nd (1976) inserted Part IV-A; the 86th (2002) amended it by adding clause (k), not (h) [2].
• Year of insertion vs year in force: inserted in 1976, in force from 3 January 1977 [2][3].
• Part IV vs Part IV-A: Directive Principles are Part IV (Art. 36–51); Fundamental Duties are Part IV-A (Art. 51A).
• Venue mix-up: the "habit of inquiry" speech was at USTM, Meghalaya [1]. The "punishing students is unconstitutional" speech was at NLU Delhi [5].