EC-Former CJI Gavai Faults Bhuyan’s Voting Remarks
Judges question comments on disenfranchisement while electoral roll case is sub judice
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and two retired Delhi High Court judges on Monday criticised Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks on disenfranchisement, saying he should not have made the comments while the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was sub judice before the apex court.
Delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at Nalsar University of Law on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order.
He also said the Constitution did not provide for two classes of citizens, one with voting rights and the other without them, and that no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process.
“Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” Justice Gavai said.
He said a sitting Supreme Court judge should not make statements on an issue pending adjudication before the same court.
Retired Delhi High Court judges Justice S.N. Dhingra and Justice R.S. Sodhi also questioned Justice Bhuyan’s remarks.
Justice Dhingra described the statement as “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge”, saying such comments should not be made at a public event when the issue was pending before the same court.
“He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Justice Dhingra said. He also claimed that Justice Bhuyan did not know the full facts of the issue.
Asked about reports that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had allegedly taken SIR-related decisions without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Justice Dhingra said the commissioners themselves could speak about disagreements, if any.
“They are all top bureaucrats of the country sitting at very important positions. They can speak for themselves. There is no need for anyone to speak on their behalf,” he said.
Justice Sodhi questioned the description of the SIR exercise as disenfranchisement, saying the right to vote was governed by the statutory framework.
“Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” he said.
Justice Sodhi said that if a person’s name was wrongly included in an electoral roll or the person did not meet the statutory requirements, the law should be followed for deletion. Eligible persons could seek inclusion again, he said.
Questioning the description of the exercise as making citizens “second class” in their own country, he said such “hardline” statements did not reflect a rational approach.
Petitions concerning the SIR exercise and other issues, including the validity of the law excluding the CJI from the panel that selects election commissioners, are pending before the Supreme Court.