New Delhi : Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and several retired judges have criticized a statement made by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in which he described the ‘Special Intensive Revision’ (SIR) of electoral rolls as a process that disenfranchises lakhs of people. Speaking at an event at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan remarked that any process depriving lakhs of Indian citizens of their right to vote is arbitrary and unconstitutional. He further stated that the Constitution does not divide citizens into two classes those with the right to vote and those without it.

Speaking to PTI on Monday regarding this statement, former CJI B.R. Gavai said that judicial propriety does not permit him to comment on a matter currently pending before the court. He explicitly stated that a sitting Supreme Court judge should not make public statements on an issue that is sub judice in the same court. Retired Delhi High Court judges S.N. Dhingra and R.S. Sodhi also concurred with Gavai’s view.

Justice Dhingra remarked that Justice Bhuyan’s statement went far beyond the boundaries expected of a sitting apex court judge. According to him, such comments should not be made at public events when the matter is pending before the court. Dhingra added that Justice Bhuyan should have thought twice before making such a statement, as he was not fully apprised of the facts of the case.

Meanwhile, questions have also been raised regarding decisions related to the SIR specifically, whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took these decisions without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. Responding to this, Justice Dhingra remarked that if there is any disagreement, the Election Commissioner can articulate his views personally. He is a senior official of the country and does not need anyone else to speak on his behalf.

Meanwhile, Justice RS Sodhi, a retired judge of the Delhi High Court, stated that the right to vote falls within the ambit of the law. Any individual who meets the legal criteria possesses the right to vote. If a name appears on the electoral roll erroneously or if the person is ineligible, the name can be removed in accordance with the law, and an eligible person can have their name added.

Justice Sodhi questioned the harsh statement characterizing citizens as “second-class,” noting that such strong remarks do not reflect a balanced approach to the issue. The focus should instead be on whether the individual is legally entitled to be on the voter list and whether due process was followed.

It is worth noting that Justice Bhuyan is known for openly expressing his views on issues of public discourse. During the event, Justice Bhuyan also praised the students of NALSAR, stating that the institution could be proud of them. He told the students, “You have shown the country and the world what a university student especially a law student—ought to be like. You are talented, courageous, and brave.”

Significantly, Justice Bhuyan has previously served as the Chancellor of NALSAR. NALSAR Hyderabad had previously made headlines when a group of students wrote to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and professors, opposing any proposal to invite Chief Justice Surya Kant as the chief guest for the convocation ceremony.

Report – Abhijit Tushar Bhatt (Political Editor)