Society that accepts unverified claims and fears questions is vulnerable to authoritarianism: Justice Bhuyan

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan identified three connected dangers: accepting claims without evidence, fearing questions and treating tradition as beyond question. Together, they weaken a society’s ability to test what it hears and correct what it practices. That matters because misinformation thrives when people stop asking whether a claim is supported by facts.

The mechanism is simple. If emotional statements or repeated traditions are accepted automatically, people may follow the first explanation they hear. Inquiry interrupts that process. It makes people seek reasons, examine evidence and look beyond appearances. This helps them recognise false narratives and make independent choices.

Bhuyan said the result of abandoning inquiry is serious. Society becomes “defenceless in the face of authoritarianism” and may fail to reform unjust practices. He urged universities to cultivate this habit among students, especially amid dissatisfaction over NEET 2026 paper leaks, student unrest and protests across major institutions.

Scientific temper is an attitude of inquiry, reason and openness to examination. It is not limited to laboratory work or scientific careers. Justice Bhuyan described it as the capacity to base what people say or think on reason and to investigate claims before accepting them.

Its key mechanism is disciplined questioning. A person with scientific temper does not stop at the first explanation. They look for evidence, ask why something is true and search beneath the surface. This habit helps people recognise misinformation, resist prejudice and make independent choices. It also supports a willingness to reconsider inherited beliefs.

Bhuyan said this quality must develop over time, with its “germination” taking place in universities. He connected it to students’ role in civil and political society. In his view, scientific temper protects minds from false narratives and helps citizens respond thoughtfully to public controversies, including paper leaks and institutional unrest.

Article 51A connects scientific temper with the responsibilities of citizens. Its purpose is broader than encouraging technical research. It asks citizens to develop habits that support rational judgment, inquiry and openness. Justice Bhuyan stressed that these habits matter because citizens must think and act within a civil and political society.

The practical connection is daily decision-making. Citizens who question claims, seek empirical evidence and examine explanations are better equipped to identify misinformation. They can also resist prejudice and make independent choices. Bhuyan said this capacity should extend to youths and students, and that universities are where its development must begin.

The article places this constitutional duty against current public tensions. It mentions dissatisfaction over NEET 2026 paper leaks, student unrest and agitations at institutions including IIT Bombay and multiple National Law Schools. Building scientific temper, therefore, means preparing students to respond to such issues through reason rather than unverified assertions or emotional pressure.

The Constitution lists 11 Fundamental Duties in Article 51A. The duty specifically connected with scientific temper is Article 51A(h). It calls on citizens to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. The article refers to scientific temper but does not state the total number of duties; the constitutional count is 11.

This duty works through habits rather than a single action. It encourages citizens to question claims, seek evidence and remain open to examination. The purpose is to prevent prejudice and support independent thinking. Inquiry also creates the possibility of identifying and changing practices that are unjust, even when they are defended as tradition.

Justice Bhuyan said scientific temper should begin developing in universities and extend beyond laboratories. His comments came as the article described dissatisfaction over NEET 2026 paper leaks, student unrest and agitations across premier institutions. The constitutional duty therefore has a direct connection to how students assess public claims and participate in civic life.

Accepting unverified claims and avoiding questions weakens the mind’s ability to distinguish evidence from assertion. Treating tradition as beyond examination adds another barrier to correction. Justice Bhuyan warned that these habits make society vulnerable to misinformation and leave it defenceless when authoritarian power demands obedience.

The process begins with passive acceptance. People may accept the first explanation, especially when it carries emotional force, without looking for reasons or empirical evidence. This allows prejudice to grow and makes false narratives easier to spread. Without inquiry, individuals also lose the confidence to think independently or challenge practices that cause injustice.

Bhuyan linked these dangers to present public life. The article mentions NEET 2026 paper-leak dissatisfaction, student unrest and agitations at institutions from IIT Bombay to multiple National Law Schools. His warning suggests that stronger inquiry, beginning in universities, can help students and society respond to such conflicts with evidence and reason.

Justice Bhuyan contrasted “us” and “they” with the Preamble’s “We, the People of India” because the two phrases express different visions of society. The first creates an opposing binary. It divides people into competing groups and encourages a destructive false narrative. The second includes everyone within a shared constitutional community.

The key mechanism is inclusive unity. Bhuyan said the constitutional “we” allows diversity to coexist with unity. It does not erase differences or require individual identities to disappear into a larger whole. Instead, it seeks unity without uniformity. That makes it a stronger basis for democratic citizenship and public discussion.

The contrast matters amid the unrest and agitations described in the article. A society shaped by “us” and “they” may deepen suspicion and conflict. A society guided by “we” can acknowledge disagreement while preserving a common civic belonging. Bhuyan urged this shift as protection against divisive narratives.

Democracy depends on people who can examine claims rather than accept them automatically. Inquiry encourages citizens to ask for reasons and empirical evidence. Independent thinking allows them to reach judgments without simply following emotional appeals, group pressure or authority. These habits make public discussion more reliable and open to correction.

The mechanism is intellectual resistance. When people search deeper than appearances, they can identify misinformation and prejudice. They are also more able to question a narrative that divides society into “us” and “they”. Evidence gives disagreement a shared basis, while independent judgment helps citizens challenge practices that may be unjust even when tradition supports them.

Justice Bhuyan said this capacity protects society from authoritarianism and supports reform. He called for its development among youths and students, with universities providing the germination point. The article connects this need to paper-leak dissatisfaction, student unrest and agitations across premier institutions, showing why civic reasoning remains important.