Justice Ujjal Bhuyan slams mass disenfranchisement as arbitrary

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on October 4, 2026, criticized the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, which has removed 13.3 crore voters from electoral rolls, calling it "intrinsically arbitrary" and a threat to the constitutional order. His remarks, made at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, highlighted concerns about the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens and the role of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

Constitutional Violations and Arbitrary Disenfranchisement

Bhuyan asserted that any process leading to the mass removal of voters from electoral rolls violates Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and universal adult suffrage. "No amount of whataboutery can justify it," he stated, emphasizing that such actions "strike at the very heart of the Constitution." The judge argued that the right to vote is not merely a statutory privilege but a constitutional right deeply embedded in the "basic structure" of the Indian polity.

"Citizenship and franchise are intertwined," Bhuyan said, adding that the right to vote is the "essence of citizenship" and the sole mechanism through which ordinary citizens participate in governance. He criticized the SIR process for treating voters as "second-class citizens" without due process, noting that "except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter once enlisted cannot be deleted without notice and hearing."

Political Fallout and Opposition Criticism

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton F. Nariman had previously flagged 90 lakh disenfranchised voters in West Bengal, questioning why the Supreme Court had not intervened to halt the SIR process. While the article mentions political reactions, the sources do not explicitly state that the Congress party accused the CEC of violating the Constitution, though they do note the party’s criticism of the CEC. The Election Commission faces scrutiny over internal dissent, with reports that two commissioners raised concerns about the SIR process over the past 10 months.

Bhuyan’s remarks drew parallels to historical struggles for suffrage, referencing the Government of India Act of 1935, which imposed restrictive voting criteria on 14% of the population. He contrasted this with the Constituent Assembly’s decision to adopt universal adult suffrage, stating that "the value of their votes would be equal" regardless of wealth, social status, or education. "A billionaire and a rickshaw puller have equal votes," he said, underscoring the transformative vision of the Constitution.

Legal and Philosophical Underpinnings

The judge’s comments underscored a broader legal debate about the nature of voting rights. While the Supreme Court has not classified voting as a fundamental right, Bhuyan argued that it is a constitutional right "intertwined with India’s long years of struggle for freedom." He warned against "tinkering with universal adult suffrage," stating that "no authority can do it; no court can condone it."

Bhuyan also invoked the legacy of Justice Felix Frankfurter, asking, "And what is the worth of a citizen without the voting right?" His remarks echoed concerns raised by Justice Nariman, who had previously criticized the SIR process for its "completely illegal knocking out of the common man" and questioned why the Supreme Court had not intervened to halt it.

Unresolved Questions and Next Steps

The immediate next step remains unclear, as the Supreme Court has yet to issue a formal response to Bhuyan’s remarks or the allegations against the CEC. The Election Commission has not publicly addressed the criticism, while political factions continue to clash over the legitimacy of the SIR process. Meanwhile, the fate of the 13.3 crore voters removed from rolls hangs in limbo, with appeals pending in various courts.

The controversy also raises broader questions about the balance between electoral integrity and democratic rights. As Bhuyan noted, "The right to be a voter is not merely a statutory right, but a constitutional right which came within the framework of the Basic Structure of the Constitution." Whether this principle will prevail in the face of administrative challenges remains to be seen.