Stories
Former CJI and Retired Judges Criticize Justice Bhuyans Remarks on SIR
- •Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and retired judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi criticized Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan for publicly commenting on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- •The critics pointed out that judicial propriety demands restraint as the matter regarding the electoral roll revision is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court.
- •Justice Dhingra stated that a sitting top court judge exceeded limits by making such remarks without full knowledge of the facts, while Justice Sodhi questioned the characterization of the process as disenfranchisement.
- •Justice Bhuyan had earlier described processes that disenfranchise citizens as intrinsically arbitrary during an address at NALSAR University of Law.
Key Questions Answered
Former CJI B R Gavai and retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi criticised Justice Ujjal Bhuyan for publicly commenting on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. They pointed out that judicial propriety required him to refrain from publicly discussing a matter that is sub judice and currently pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Speaking at NALSAR University of Law, Justice Bhuyan described any process that disenfranchises millions of Indian citizens as intrinsically arbitrary and a negation of the constitutional order. He argued that the Constitution does not envisage two categories of citizens—one with voting rights and one without—and stated that no amount of whataboutery could justify such an exercise.
Retired Justice R S Sodhi stated that voting rights are determined strictly by the applicable statutory framework, meaning a person has a vote only if they fall within the legal parameters of the statute. He explained that the law provides clear mechanisms for deleting wrongly included names and allows eligible individuals who were excluded to seek inclusion through the prescribed process.
