Back
Justice Oka Backs Bhuyan Over Remark, Says No
In a significant clarification of the boundaries of judicial commentary, former judge Justice Abhay Oka has strongly defended sitting judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's recent remarks on , asserting that the comments were made in an academic context and did not constitute any . The defense comes amid a brewing controversy over whether a sitting judge can publicly opine on matters relating to voter rights, especially when a related exercise—the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—is before the Court.
Justice Oka, speaking during an interaction with former Judge Advocate General , founder-director of the , carefully parsed Justice Bhuyan's speech delivered at the . He concluded that the judge had not crossed any ethical line, nor had he commented on the merits of any pending case.
The Controversy
The controversy erupted after Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while delivering the valedictory address at a moot court competition at NALSAR, remarked that the mass removal of voters from electoral rolls cannot be condoned by any court. He argued that if the arbitrarily deletes lakhs or millions of names from the voters' list, such an act would be violative of . Critics, including some retired judges, suggested that the statement could be seen as a comment on the ongoing SIR exercise, which has been challenged before the .
Justice Bhuyan's speech, however, focused on the historical and constitutional importance of . He traced the concept from the 1895 through the to the drafting of the Constitution, and cited the Constitution Bench judgment in to underscore that the right to vote under is fundamental to democratic participation.
Justice Oka's Defense
Justice Oka, who reviewed the entire video of the speech before offering his views, stated unequivocally that he found no comment on the merits of any pending case or any order passed by the regarding SIR.
"I don't think he has crossed limits... on the contrary, I feel he has told the importance of
to the young students and the importance of
in the democracy. I don't think anything is wrong with that,"
Justice Oka remarked.
He emphasized that a sitting judge is also an individual citizen who cannot be indifferent to national issues. While self-restraint is necessary—judges should not go to the media or write about a particular issue—they can participate in academic discussions at law schools as students of law.
"In fact personally I feel that there is nothing wrong if judges talk about this process as a citizen... I will go one step ahead - surely no sitting judge can comment upon merits of a case pending in his court or some other constitutional court or coordinate bench, no doubt about it. But maybe as a student of law while discussing law with the students, he may say that a particular judgment of the
may require reconsideration. That does not mean he will take the same view on judicial side,"
Justice Oka added.
Academic Discussions and
Justice Oka drew a parallel with his own experience as a sitting judge addressing law students on freedom of speech under . He noted that he often told students that this is the most precious and that constitutional courts must protect it. He even acknowledged that some may feel courts have not always done so—yet such remarks do not amount to criticism of any judgment.
"Similarly, what Justice Bhuyan has said is how
is important. In the context of the
, he refers to
and says that removal of large numbers of voters by the
in millions will be arbitrary, which will be naturally violative of Article 14. I find that he has not criticized any judgment of the
or commented on the merits of any controversy pending in the
. These are his thoughts as a student of law and I feel he is entitled to do so."
This reasoning provides a crucial framework for legal professionals: a judge's academic expression, when delivered in a law school setting and framed as a general discussion of constitutional principles, does not violate judicial propriety, even if it touches upon issues that are the subject of pending litigation.
A Personal Experience with SIR
Justice Oka also shared a personal anecdote that illustrated the very arbitrariness Justice Bhuyan had warned against. During the SIR exercise, Justice Oka was asked to fill Form 8 because of an error in the spelling of his surname, despite having submitted identity documents with the correct spelling. He had to find the serial number of his father's name in the voter list, which he did not know. After filling the enumeration form with copies of his official identity, the enumeration list still bore a misspelled surname. The Booth Level Officer told him he would have to apply under Form 8, as the officer himself was not empowered to correct the error.
"What is this exercise? Result of filling in enumeration form was there's a mistake committed in my surname notwithstanding the fact that my surname is correctly spelled in English in my official documents I had submitted. Now I have to apply under Form 8. Was it all necessary?"
Justice Oka remarked.
This anecdote underscores the potential for arbitrary implementation even in a legally valid process. Justice Oka argued that even if the has upheld the validity of SIR, arbitrariness in implementation can render the process illegal. A citizen, or even a sitting judge, can point out such arbitrariness without overstepping.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
Justice Oka's intervention is significant for several reasons. It provides a clear distinction between impermissible judicial commentary on pending cases and permissible on constitutional values. For legal professionals, this means that judges can and should engage with the legal community on foundational principles, as long as they do not pre-judge specific disputes.
The former judge also addressed the role of retired judges, stating that while they are not bound by the same restraints as sitting judges, they should express views respectfully and with proper explanation if they disagree with a court decision. This balanced approach helps maintain the dignity of the judiciary while allowing for robust intellectual exchange.
Conclusion
Justice Abhay Oka's defense of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's remarks clarifies that a sitting judge's academic commentary on the importance of and the dangers of does not amount to . By situating the speech within the context of a law school moot court and emphasizing the judge's role as a perpetual student of law, Justice Oka has reinforced the principle that judges remain citizens with the right to engage in . For the legal community, this case serves as a valuable guide on the limits of judicial expression and the enduring value of free and open debate on fundamental rights.
