Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court has said that any process which strips millions of Indian citizens of their right to vote is intrinsically arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution, and cannot be justified by any amount of whataboutery.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Hyderabad: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that a process resulting in the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens strikes at the heart of the Constitution, describing the right to vote as central to the basic structure doctrine and stating that Article 326, which guarantees adult suffrage, “cannot be tinkered with at all. No authority can do it; no court can condone it.”
Justice Bhuyan was delivering the valedictory address at the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026. The remarks are his views expressed at an academic event and are not findings of any court.
“Intrinsically arbitrary”: On mass disenfranchisement
Speaking on the consequences of large-scale exclusion from electoral rolls, Justice Bhuyan said:
“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 and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the constitutional order which we have adopted under the Constitution of India.”
Right to vote and the basic structure
Justice Bhuyan placed the franchise at the core of citizenship and of the Constitution’s basic structure:
“Therefore, in my view, the right of an Indian citizen to cast his vote is central to the basic structure doctrine itself. In fact, the right of franchise is the very essence of citizenship. It is the only way an ordinary citizen of India can participate in the governance of the country.”
Linking the right to vote to the freedom struggle, he said:
“Indian citizens’ right to vote is intertwined with India’s long years of struggle against foreign rule. It is a manifestation of our freedom achieved after so much of struggle and sacrifice. Article 326 cannot be tinkered with at all. No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution.”
No deletion without notice and hearing
Referring to the Supreme Court‘s decision in Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer, Justice Bhuyan said:
“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.”
He also referred to People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), and to Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: Wrong To Link SIR Deletions To Trinamool’s Loss In 31 Bengal Seats: ECI Tells SC
“No two classes of citizens”
Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not recognise citizens without voting rights:
“From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or right to be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body. Indian Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens: citizens 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 and 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Background
The remarks come against the backdrop of the Election Commission of India‘s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, West Bengal and other States, which has drawn concerns over the exclusion of voters. The Supreme Court upheld the SIR exercise in its judgment of May 27, 2026. The Election Commission has defended the exercise before the Supreme Court, including by contesting attempts to link SIR deletions to electoral outcomes in West Bengal.
Why the remarks matter
The address by a sitting Supreme Court judge comes after the Court‘s own ruling upholding the SIR and while further petitions on the Election Commission‘s conduct of the exercise remain pending. By describing the right to vote as part of the basic structure and stating that names cannot be removed from the rolls without notice and hearing, Justice Bhuyan framed voter-roll revision as a question of equality and constitutional order rather than administration alone. The views are his own and do not bind any pending proceeding.
Speaker: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge, Supreme Court of India
Event: Valedictory address, 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026