On October 4, Supreme Court judge Justice Bhuyan delivered a powerful speech declaring that any process disenfranchising millions of Indian citizens is intrinsically arbitrary and a direct negation of the constitutional order. The remarks, made during a public address, have sent ripples through the legal community, raising fundamental questions about the sanctity of voting rights and the limits of state power in maintaining electoral rolls. Justice Bhuyan did not mince words, asserting that no institution—including courts—can condone such wholesale disenfranchisement.

The judge’s statements come amid ongoing concerns over the deletion of names from electoral rolls across various states, a practice that has left many citizens without the ability to vote. In his speech, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that the Indian Constitution does not recognise two classes of citizens: those with voting rights and those without. He pointed to Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution, arguing that any process leading to mass disenfranchisement violates these provisions. “If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens making them second class citizens in their own country in the sense of being citizens without voting rights, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary,” he said. “No amount of whataboutery can justify it. It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the constitutional order which we have adopted under the Constitution of India.”

A Constitutional Imperative: No Two Classes of Citizens

Justice Bhuyan’s speech underscored a core constitutional principle: the right to vote is inseparable from the status of citizenship. He argued that the Indian Constitution does not provide for a hierarchy of citizenship, where some citizens enjoy voting rights while others are excluded. “Indian Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens: citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights,” he stated. “Any process which leads to wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens making them citizens without voting rights would be violative of Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The judge’s reference to Article 326, which guarantees adult suffrage, and Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, provides a clear constitutional benchmark. Legal experts have noted that the remarks effectively challenge any administrative or legislative measure that results in large-scale deletion of names from electoral rolls without proper safeguards. The speech serves as a reminder that voting rights are not a privilege to be granted or revoked at the discretion of authorities, but a fundamental attribute of citizenship.

Deletion of Names Requires Due Process

Perhaps the most striking part of Justice Bhuyan’s address was his categorical ruling on the deletion of names from electoral rolls. He drew a sharp line between the death of a voter and any other circumstance. “Except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter once enlisted in the electoral roll cannot be deleted without notice and hearing,” he declared. “From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or right to be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body.”

This statement has immediate practical implications for election officials and state governments. The requirement of notice and hearing before striking off a voter’s name is not merely procedural but goes to the heart of natural justice. The judge made clear that no authority—whether the Election Commission, state governments, or even courts—can bypass this constitutional mandate. “No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said.

The remarks are likely to influence pending litigation in various high courts and the Supreme Court, where challenges to electoral roll deletions are being heard. Advocates and civil society groups have already begun citing the speech in their arguments. The judge’s observations may also prompt the Election Commission of India to review its guidelines on voter list maintenance to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.

Justice Bhuyan’s speech comes at a time when electoral roll management has become a contentious issue, with allegations of targeted deletions in certain constituencies. By reaffirming the constitutional inviolability of the right to vote, the judge has placed a heavy burden on authorities to justify any removal of names. The speech serves as a powerful reminder that the Constitution demands vigilance against any process that creates second-class citizens.

The legal community now awaits the formal adoption of these principles in court judgments, but Justice Bhuyan’s words have already set a clear benchmark. As the debate over electoral roll integrity continues, his remarks will serve as a touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of disenfranchisement practices. The immediate consequence is that state election authorities must ensure that any deletion of names is accompanied by individual notice and a fair hearing, failing which they risk judicial invalidation. The speech has thus moved the needle from a procedural debate to a constitutional imperative, one that leaves no room for compromise.