New Delhi(Gurpreet Singh) — Delivering a sharp critique amid an escalating controversy over the alleged deletion of more than 130 million voters during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday declared that any mechanism causing wholesale disenfranchisement of citizens is intrinsically arbitrary and amounts to a negation of the constitutional order. Speaking at NALSAR University of Law, Justice Bhuyan emphasized that no administrative authority possesses the mandate to strip citizens of their franchise, nor could any judicial bench condone such action.
Justice Bhuyan underlined that the Indian Constitution guarantees a single tier of citizenship governed by universal adult suffrage, firmly repudiating the emergence of a two-tiered populace divided by the possession of voting rights. Invoking the basic structure doctrine, he stated that mass removals directly contravene Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 326 (elections based on adult suffrage). Regardless of economic disparities between billionaires and daily wage earners, the constitutional value of their ballots remains identical, making procedural deletions without due notice an impermissible assault on democratic standing.
Except in the event of a verified deceased elector, Justice Bhuyan noted that once registered on the electoral roll, a voter’s entry cannot be expunged without formal prior notice and a fair hearing. Comparing the franchise to the foundational identity of an Indian citizen, he remarked that detaching voting rights from citizenship is akin to severing the soul from the body, asserting that procedural evasions or political deflections cannot legally justify mass omissions.
The judicial observations triggered immediate political fallout, with senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Reacting on social media, Ramesh stated that the remarks by a sitting Supreme Court judge validate concerns regarding the dilution of constitutional guarantees, arguing that the leadership of the Election Commission has forfeited the moral standing to remain in office following the disenfranchisement row.
