Stories
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Sparks Debate Over Voter Disenfranchisement
- •Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that any process leading to the wholesale disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is intrinsically arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution.
- •Opposition leaders including those from NCP, Congress, and Shiv Sena UBT welcomed Justice Bhuyan's remarks, criticizing the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise.
- •Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and retired judges SN Dhingra and RS Sodhi questioned the propriety of a sitting judge commenting on a matter sub judice before the Supreme Court.
- •The Election Commission and ruling BJP have defended the Special Intensive Revision exercise, maintaining that it is conducted in accordance with constitutional norms and the law.
Key Questions Answered
Justice Bhuyan cited Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which permits entries to be deleted from electoral rolls only after giving the voter a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He also linked wholesale disenfranchisement to Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution of India.
Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and other retired judges questioned Justice Bhuyan's remarks on the grounds of judicial propriety, stating that a sitting Supreme Court judge should not comment on an active matter that is sub judice before the apex court.
In May, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise, ruling that it was constitutional and legally tenable despite following a different process from ordinary routine revisions.
