Ujjal Bhuyan

Early Life and Education

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was born in Gauhati on 2 August 1964. He studied at Don Bosco High School, Gauhati, before graduating with a degree in Arts from Kirori Mal College, Delhi. He pursued law at the Government Law College, Gauhati, and subsequently obtained his LL.M. degree from Gauhati University.

He is the son of Senior Advocate Suchendra Nath Bhuyan, who served as the Advocate General of Assam.

Career as an Advocate

In March 1991, Justice Bhuyan enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. He specialised in Revenue, Labour and Taxation matters.

From 1995 to 2011, he was the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. He served as the Additional Government Advocate for Meghalaya for four years, and in March 2010, was appointed Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court. In July 2011, he became the Additional Advocate General of Assam.

He was designated a Senior Advocate by the Gauhati High Court in September 2010. By then, he had practiced in the Gauhati High Court for two decades.

Career as a Judge

On 17 October 2011, Justice Bhuyan was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court and became a Permanent Judge on 20 March 2013.

In 2019, he was transferred to the Bombay High Court, where he served until 2022. On 28 June 2022, he was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court.

In March 2023, he made headlines when he announced plans to constitute larger benches with more women judges in the Telangana High Court.

On 5 July 2023, the Collegium recommended him for elevation to the Supreme Court for his expertise in taxation law. His appointment was notified by the Department of Justice on 12 July 2023. He took oath as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 14 July 2023.

In March 2025, while addressing law students at Bharatiya Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune, Justice Bhuyan condemned extra-legal demolition drives, calling bulldozer actions “like running a bulldozer over the Constitution.” He warned such measures negate the rule of law and violate Article 21, stressing that innocent family members are also displaced. He urged students to adopt a critical mindset, noting that while the Supreme Court is final, “if there were a court above it, many of its judgements would have been reconsidered.”

Justice Bhuyan has authored 127 judgements and has been a part of 242 benches. 

Out of his judgements, Justice Bhuyan has authored 23 percent judgements in criminal matters. This is followed by Direct Taxation, Custom, Excise and Good and Service Tax. 

Notable Judgements

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), Justice Bhuyan was part of the Bench that overturned a Calcutta High Court acquittal which had indulged in “victim-shaming” in a POCSO case. The Court restored the conviction but set aside the sentence, noting systemic failures and that the victim, now an adult, had chosen to marry the convict and start a family. The Bench clarified that this was not a precedent, but a response to the collapse of State support mechanisms. It directed the West Bengal Government to provide shelter and education for the victim and her child. The Bench asked the Union to implement reforms for institutional accountability in POCSO cases.

In Ramu Appa Mahapatar v State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court acquitted a murder accused, emphasising that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence and must be corroborated. The Court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt based on inconsistencies in witness statements. The judgement, authored by Justice Bhuyan, found that the accused was in a confused state when he confessed. It reiterated that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, all links in the chain must conclusively point to the accused’s guilt.

In Bijender Singh v Union of India (2025) the Court held that if a disease is not detected at the time of enrolment in the Armed Forces, it must be presumed to have arisen during service. Bijender Singh, a member of the Armed Forces, was invalided from service after he was diagnosed with “generalised tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67”. The Invaliding Medical Board assessed his disability at below 20 percent and held that it was not attributable to military service. Justice Bhuyan clarified that when a person is invalided out on medical grounds, their disability is presumed to be at least 20 percent. He directed that Bijender Singh be granted disability pension at the rate applicable to 50 percent disability.

In Satish Chander Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh (2025), a  Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that Article 32 cannot be invoked to obtain relief that has already been rejected by the Court in an earlier judgement. A group of retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation had sought pensionary benefits under a discontinued 1999 scheme, arguing that the Court’s decision in State of H.P. v Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) was per incuriam. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the 2016 judgment had provided detailed reasoning and did not disregard binding precedents. It emphasised that Article 32 is not a substitute for review or curative petitions.

In Somdatt Builders NCC-NEC v National Highways Authority of India (2025), a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Bhuyan held that courts cannot interpret contractual terms while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. They set aside a Delhi High Court Division Bench ruling that had overturned an arbitral award by re-examining the merits of the contract, reiterating that the scope of Section 37 is limited.

In the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy case (2024), a Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Bhuyan granted bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Justice Bhuyan, in a separate opinion, questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation’s belated decision to arrest him nearly two years after registering a case. He observed that the arrest appeared to frustrate the bail granted to Kejriwal in the same case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. He stressed that “CBI must not only be above board but must also be seen to be so,” adding that rule of law requires fair, transparent and judicious investigation.

In V. Vasanta Mogli v State of Telangana (2023) as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, Justice Bhuyan authored the judgement striking down the colonial-era Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919. The Act permitted warrantless arrests of transgender persons and mandated their registration. He held that the Act was “manifestly arbitrary” and violated Articles 14 and 21, as it offended the rights to privacy and dignity of transgender persons.