Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan slams SIR

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday (October 4, 2026) said any process disenfranchising millions, making them second class citizens without the right to vote, was intrinsically arbitrary, and violative of universal adult suffrage and right to equality.

Speaking at NALSAR, Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan said no amount of whataboutery could justify the exclusion of voters en masse from the electoral rolls as such an action was fatal to the Constitution.

The serving apex court judge’s remarks have come amid widespread student and youth agitations for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has so far led to the deletion of approximately 13.3 crore voters from the electoral rolls.

Recently, former Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, had drawn attention to the “astounding figure” of 90 lakh disenfranchised voters in West Bengal itself, questioning why the figure did not prompt the Supreme Court to stay the Special Intensive Revision process. He had termed the exclusion of voters and delay in deciding their appeals “a completely illegal knocking out of the common man, the citizen of India, in order that a government obtains what it wants”.

On Sunday (October 4, 2026), Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution did not provide for two classes of citizens - those with voting rights and citizens without voting rights

“Any process which leads to wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens making them citizens without voting rights would be violative of Articles 326 (adult suffrage) and 14 (right to equalty) of the Constitution, if any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens making them second class citizens in their own country in the sense of being citizens without voting rights, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it. It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution” Justice Bhuyan said.

Justice Bhuyan said no one could tinker with universal adult suffrage.

“No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution. Indian citizens’ right to vote is intertwined with India’s long years of struggle for freedom,” he said.

The judge said the right to be a voter was not merely a statutory right, but a constitutional right which came within the framework of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

He said citizenship and franchise were intertwined, and one could not be divorced from the other. The right of franchise was the very essence of citizenship. It was the only way an ordinary citizen of India could participate in the governance of the country.

“Universal adult franchise is the right of every adult citizen to vote, free of qualifications of sex, race, religion, wealth, education or social status, subject only to narrow, reasoned exceptions…

“Except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter once enlisted in the electoral roll cannot be deleted without notice and hearing,” Justice Bhuyan said..

He referred to how the Government of India Act of 1935 had dictated “partial franchise” to the Indian subjects of the British crown. People of ‘Part A’ States were allowed to vote on the basis of their qualifications, which included residence, taxation, property, literacy, community, marital status (for women), etc. They had only accounted for about 14% of the entire population.

The Constituent Assembly had, while embracing full and universal adult suffrage, found these restrictions arbitrary and retrograde. The Founding Fathers and Mothers of the nation had believed in the pragmatism and wisdom of the ordinary Indian, and took the first step towards equality.

“One may be a billionaire, and one may be a rickshaw puller; yet both will have their votes, and the value of their votes would be equal. Likewise a socially high placed temple priest on the one hand and a person belonging to the lowest strata of the society compelled to work as a manual scavenger have an equal vote with equal value. This is the transformational vision of the Indian Constitution,” Justice Bhuyan noted.