Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka has said there is no impropriety in Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on mass disenfranchisement, since a judge may speak on national issues as a citizen so long as he does not comment on a pending case or order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka has said that Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan‘s recent remarks on mass disenfranchisement of voters did not breach judicial propriety, even though the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is a subject of proceedings before the Supreme Court [Justice Oka on Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on SIR].
Justice Oka made the remarks in an interview with Nilendra Kumar, former Judge Advocate General and Founder-Director of the Lex Consilium Foundation.
What Justice Bhuyan had said
Justice Bhuyan spoke at the valedictory function of a moot court competition at NALSAR. He traced the history of adult franchise and, relying on Article 326 and the Constitution Bench decision in Anoop Baranwal, said that a process which removes lakhs or millions of voters from the rolls would be arbitrary and violate Article 14, and that no court can condone mass disenfranchisement.
The criticism
The remarks drew criticism from former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and retired judges S.N. Dhingra and R.S. Sodhi. Justice Gavai’s stated concern was that a sitting Supreme Court judge should avoid public comment on an issue that is pending before the same court.
What Justice Oka said
Justice Oka said a sitting judge should not comment on the merits of a case pending before his own bench or a coordinate bench, and that Justice Bhuyan had not done so. Having listened to the full speech, he said, he found no comment on any pending Supreme Court matter and no criticism of any order passed in the SIR proceedings.
He said judges are citizens and cannot remain indifferent to national issues. In his view, judges should show self-restraint in media statements or writings on issues they hold views on, but may speak at a law college as students of law, provided they do not comment on a specific order or a pending matter. He compared this with his own talks at law schools on freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Justice Oka added that even where the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the SIR, arbitrariness can arise in its implementation, which could make the process illegal, and that a citizen or a sitting judge could object to it. On retired judges, he said they are not bound by the same restraints as sitting judges, but should express disagreement with a Supreme Court decision respectfully and with reasons.
Sharing his own experience, Justice Oka said he was asked to file Form 8 because his surname was misspelled in the draft roll despite his having submitted identity documents with the correct spelling, and that the error persisted when the list was published. He questioned whether the exercise was necessary.
Why the remarks matter
The exchange places two views of judicial restraint side by side. One holds that a sitting judge should stay away from any public comment on a subject pending before his own court; the other, voiced by Justice Oka, draws the line at comment on a specific order or pending matter and allows general constitutional discussion in academic settings. LawChakra takes no position on either view or on the SIR itself, which remains before the Supreme Court.
Matter: Interview of Justice Abhay S. Oka (former Judge, Supreme Court of India) with Nilendra Kumar, Lex Consilium Foundation, on remarks by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on mass disenfranchisement and the SIR of electoral rolls
Date: October 8, 2026
