Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Mass Disenfranchisement Arbitrary, Voter Deletion Needs Notice

In a forceful address that resonates deeply with ongoing debates over electoral roll management, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan declared that any process resulting in the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is "intrinsically arbitrary" and strikes at the heart of the Constitution. Speaking at the valedictory ceremony of the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition, Justice Bhuyan underscored that the right to vote is not a mere statutory privilege but a constitutional right flowing from Article 326, and that enrolled voters cannot be removed from the electoral roll without notice and an opportunity of hearing, except in cases of death. His remarks carry particular weight amid the controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision exercise, which has drawn criticism for reportedly striking off millions of names from draft rolls.

Right to Vote: A Constitutional Cornerstone

Justice Bhuyan traced the evolution of universal adult suffrage in India, noting that the idea predated Independence. He highlighted that the Government of India Act, 1935 had introduced a highly restricted franchise covering only about 14% of the population, with qualifications based on residence, taxation, property, literacy, community, and marital status. The Constituent Assembly, however, chose to adopt universal adult suffrage—a decision Justice Bhuyan described as a “bold experiment” and an “act of faith” in the common citizen.

Referencing Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, Justice Bhuyan recalled that Ambedkar argued the right to vote and adult suffrage should be written into the Constitution rather than left to parliamentary discretion. “Therefore, it was an act of faith for our founding fathers in the common man of India and in his pragmatism and wisdom. It was the first step taken to achieve equality in India,” Justice Bhuyan said. He illustrated this by stating, “One may be a billionaire, and one may be a rickshaw puller; yet both will have their votes, and the value of their votes would be equal.”

The judge emphasised that Article 326 gives every Indian citizen who has attained 18 years of age—unless disqualified on specified grounds—the entitlement to be registered as a voter. “Emphasis in Article 326 is on every citizen of India,” he noted. The principle of “one man, one vote, one value” reflects a facet of equality central to the Constitution.

Notice and Hearing: Non‑Negotiable Safeguards

Addressing the deletion of names from electoral rolls, Justice Bhuyan pointed to Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which permits removal of an entry only after the voter has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer , which mandate issuance of notice and a hearing for the affected voter. “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,” Justice Bhuyan declared.

He further explained that the right to vote or to be included in the voters' list is inseparable from a person's status as an Indian citizen. “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,” he said. Stressing that the Constitution does not recognise two classes of citizens—those with voting rights and those without—Justice Bhuyan warned that any process leading to wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14.

Mass Disenfranchisement: An Intrinsic Arbitrariness

Justice Bhuyan’s strongest words were reserved for processes that strip millions of their voting rights. “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. 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,” he said.

He made clear that no institution—whether executive or judicial—can condone such an outcome. “No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he asserted. Linking the right to vote with India’s freedom struggle, Justice Bhuyan added, “Indian citizens’ right to vote is intertwined with India’s long years of struggle against foreign rule. It is a manifestation of our freedom achieved after so much of struggle and sacrifice. Article 326 cannot be tinkered with at all.”

While the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is not a fundamental right, Justice Bhuyan cited People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India to affirm that it is a constitutional right originating from Article 326. He also referenced Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India , where the Supreme Court observed that the right to be a voter and to vote is of the greatest importance and forms the foundation of free and fair elections. In his view, “the right of an Indian citizen to cast his vote is central to the basic structure doctrine itself.”

Implications for Electoral Governance

Justice Bhuyan’s address arrives at a time when the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is under intense legal and political scrutiny. Although he did not specifically name the exercise, his observations on mass disenfranchisement and the necessity of procedural fairness directly challenge any administrative process that results in wholesale deletions without adequate notice. The judge emphasised that legislation regulating voting must remain within the parameters of Articles 325 and 326, and that no statute can impose disqualifications beyond those contemplated by the Constitution. “If this is true for a legislation, it is equally true, if not more, for any administrative exercise,” he added.

For legal professionals, the speech reinforces the constitutional stature of voting rights and the stringent safeguards required before any voter can be removed from the rolls. It also signals that any large‑scale deletion exercise that bypasses individualised notice and hearing could face constitutional challenge as violative of Article 14 (equality) and Article 326 (adult suffrage). Justice Bhuyan’s invocation of the basic structure doctrine further suggests that the right to vote may be insulated from ordinary legislative or executive curtailment.

Conclusion

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s valedictory address stands as a powerful reminder that democratic legitimacy rests on the unimpaired right of every citizen to participate in elections. His unequivocal condemnation of mass disenfranchisement and his reaffirmation of procedural due process for voter deletions provide a robust constitutional framework for evaluating current electoral roll practices. As the debate over the Special Intensive Revision continues, his words will likely be cited in ongoing and future litigation, reinforcing the principle that the right to vote is the very essence of citizenship and cannot be sacrificed on the altar of administrative convenience.