No Law Prohibits Eating Chicken Over the Ganga: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Questions Arrest of 14 Youths in Varanasi Boat Iftar Case
EduLaw EditorialLandmark Judgements"Can people be arrested and denied bail for three months for eating chicken biryani?" — Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's powerful remarks at the 4th Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture expose the growing criminalisation of ordinary activities and raise urgent constitutional questions about liberty, bail, and the limits of criminal law. Title: Criminalisation Without Legal Basis — The Varanasi Ganga Boat Iftar Case and the Constitutional Limits of Criminal Law Case Name: Mohd. Azad Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Related: Observations by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at the 4th Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture, NLIU Bhopal) Case Number: FIR No. 0143/2026, P.S. Dashashwamedh, Varanasi (Bail proceedings: Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. before the Allahabad High Court) Court: Supreme Court of India (Judicial Observations); Allahabad High Court (Bail Orders); Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Varanasi (Trial Court) Judges: Hon'ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (Supreme Court of India — Observations); Hon'ble Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla & Hon'ble Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha (Allahabad High Court — Bail Orders) Judgment/Observation Date: July 26, 2026 (Justice Bhuyan's Lecture); May 15 & May 18, 2026 (High Court Bail Orders); March 23, 2026 & April 1, 2026 (Bail Denial by Varanasi Courts) Citation: As reported in LiveLaw, Indian Express, Free Press Journal, and The Hindu (July 26, 2026); Allahabad High Court Order dated May 15, 2026 in Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. ABSTRACT The Varanasi Ganga Boat Iftar Case became one of the most controversial criminal prosecutions of 2026 when 14 Muslim youths were arrested for consuming chicken biryani during an iftar gathering aboard a boat on the river Ganga. Charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including Section 299 (outraging religious feelings), Section 298 (defiling a place of worship), Section 196(1)(b) (promoting enmity), Section 270 (public nuisance), Section 279 (fouling water), and Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 , the accused spent over two months in judicial custody before the Allahabad High Court intervened to grant bail. The case drew national scrutiny when Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking at the 4th Justice G.P. Singh Memorial Lecture at NLIU Bhopal on July 26, 2026, categorically stated that "there is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river" and questioned whether citizens can be arrested and denied bail for three months for an activity that does not constitute a criminal offence. This case analysis examines the legal foundations of the prosecution, the constitutional implications of criminalising ordinary conduct, and the broader questions of personal liberty, bail jurisprudence, and the separation of criminal law from public sentiment. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Opening Hook Factual Background of the Varanasi Ganga Boat Iftar Case The Legal Framework — Sections Invoked and Their Applicability Procedural History — From Arrest to High Court Bail Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's Observations — No Crime Without Law Constitutional and Jurisprudential Analysis Comparative Treatment — The June 2026 Incident and Selective Prosecution Relevant Case Laws and Judicial Precedents Implications for Personal Liberty and Bail Jurisprudence Conclusion — Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised by Sentiment 1. INTRODUCTION AND OPENING HOOK "I am sure consuming chicken biryani is not an offence. There is no law prohibiting consumption of chicken over the Ganga river… Can people be arrested and denied bail for three months for such an activity? I ask myself! Citizens are watching, people are watching." These words, spoken by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at one of India's most prestigious legal lectures, cut through the legal fog surrounding one of 2026's most polarising criminal prosecutions. The case of 14 young men arrested in Varanasi for breaking their Ramzan fast on a boat raises fundamental questions that strike at the heart of India's constitutional order: Can the criminal law machinery be deployed against conduct that no statute expressly prohibits? Can the subjective sentiments of a community, however deeply held, substitute for a clear legal prohibition? And can bail — described by the Supreme Court as the rule rather than the exception — be denied for months when the alleged offence itself rests on contested factual and legal grounds? The Varanasi Ganga Boat Iftar Case is not merely about biryani or boats. It is about the boundary between law and morality, the protection of minority rights within a majoritarian framework, and the constitutional obligation of courts to stand as bulwarks of liberty even when popular sentiment demands incarceration. This case analysis dissects the legal, constitutional, and procedural dimensions of the prosecution, situating Justice Bhuyan's observations within the broader framework of Indian crimi