Addressing the fundamental sanctity of the franchise in a constitutional democracy, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has warned that any administrative mechanism causing millions of Indians to lose their voting rights and reducing them to disenfranchised second-class citizens in their own homeland is inherently arbitrary. Delivering an emphatic address at the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, he asserted that such a systemic deprivation cannot be justified by any caveats, rationalisations, or administrative excuses whatsoever.
Reflections on Democratic Rights at the NALSAR Memorial Moot
Justice Bhuyan delivered his remarks on Sunday while addressing the valedictory session of the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sahni Memorial Moot Court Competition. Although his speech refrained from directly naming the Election Commission's ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, his strong intervention arrived precisely at a moment when massive alterations to electoral rolls and allegations of large-scale voter deletions have ignited intense political conflict and public protests across the nation.
The Constitution Refuses to Envisage Two Classes of Citizens
Unpacking the constitutional foundations of citizenship, Justice Bhuyan stated that the Indian Constitution refuses to segregate the population into two disparate categories of people: those who possess the franchise and those who are denied it. He explained that if any state mechanism results in the disenfranchisement of large segments of the population, it runs entirely contrary to the guarantees enshrined in Article 14 and Article 326 of the Constitution of India.
Explaining these provisions, the judge noted that Article 14 establishes equality before the law, while Article 326 forms the foundational bedrock of adult suffrage for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. Justice Bhuyan emphasised that the franchise is far more than a mere mechanical act of casting a ballot on polling day; rather, it represents the primary instrument through which a citizen participates in the democratic life of the nation. Severing a citizen from the right to vote, he observed, is practically equivalent to severing that citizen from their very citizenship.
Procedural Safeguards: No Deletion Without Notice and Hearing
Focusing on the mandatory procedural safeguards governing voter list maintenance, Justice Bhuyan cited the landmark 1995 ruling in the Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer case. Referring to that precedent, he underlined that except in the specific case of a deceased elector, no registered name can be struck off the electoral rolls without issuing a formal prior notice and granting the affected voter a fair, genuine opportunity of being heard.
He further remarked that whenever the direct outcome of an administrative process is the widespread disenfranchisement of citizens, that exercise must inevitably be tested against rigorous constitutional benchmarks. Reaffirming the supremacy of constitutional limits, Justice Bhuyan declared that the core mandate of Article 326 cannot be tampered with, adding firmly that no administrative authority or state institution stands above the Constitution.
Former Judge Rohinton Nariman Raises Parallel Concerns
Adding significant weight to the emerging debate, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had also voiced deep apprehensions regarding the state of voting rights and the functioning of the Election Commission. Speaking on September 27 on the theme of 'The Constitution and the Common Man', Justice Nariman cautioned that the citizen's vote sits at the absolute core of India's democracy and Constitution, yet this fundamental pillar currently faces grave jeopardy.
Justice Nariman raised pointed questions about sweeping voter roll deletions and the shifting balance of power in appointing election commissioners. He specifically drew attention to the 2023 legislative enactment that altered the selection panel by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister, thereby giving the executive decisive leverage over election watchdog appointments. Questioning the institutional working of the Election Commission, the former judge expressed hope that the Supreme Court would expeditiously adjudicate the constitutional challenges against the 2023 appointment statute.
