Back
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: No Court Can Condone Process Disenfranchising Millions, Violates Basic Structure
In a powerful and constitutionally resonant address, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a firm pronouncement on the inviolability of the , declaring that any process leading to the mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens is intrinsically arbitrary and cannot be justified—not even by a court of law. Speaking at the valedictory ceremony of the 19th -Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026, Justice Bhuyan rooted his remarks in the foundational principles of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14 and 326, and reasserted that the is not a mere statutory privilege but a constitutional safeguard embedded in the basic structure.
His observations come against the backdrop of an ongoing controversy surrounding the ’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—a process that has raised serious concerns about the exclusion of eligible voters across several states, including Bihar and West Bengal. While Justice Bhuyan did not explicitly name the SIR exercise, the timing and substance of his remarks left little doubt as to the target of his constitutional indignation.
A Constitutional Right, Not Merely Statutory
Justice Bhuyan began by clarifying the jurisprudential status of the . Acknowledging that the has repeatedly held that the is not a fundamental right, he nonetheless emphasised that it is undeniably a constitutional right, flowing directly from of the Constitution. “The is a constitutional right and originates from ,” he said, drawing on the landmark decision in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India .
Under , every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to be registered as a voter in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections, subject only to disqualifications expressly permitted by the Constitution—such as non-residence, unsoundness of mind, or conviction for certain offences. Justice Bhuyan stressed that any legislation regulating the exercise of this right must remain strictly within the parameters of Articles 325 and 326. “Any law infringing these parameters will be void,” he asserted, adding that administrative exercises must also not irrationally or unreasonably curtail the right.
The Basic Structure Argument
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Justice Bhuyan’s address was his linkage of the to the . have long been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution; Justice Bhuyan argued that the is central to that feature. “Therefore, in my view, the right of an Indian citizen to cast his vote is central to the itself,” he said.
He elaborated that the right of franchise is the very essence of citizenship. “It is the only way an ordinary citizen of India can participate in the governance of the country,” he noted, tying the act of voting to the nation’s long struggle against colonial rule. “Indian citizens' 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.”
The imagery was deliberate: to disenfranchise a citizen is to strip them of a core attribute of their personhood. “From the persona of an Indian citizen, the or right to be included in the voters list cannot be detached,” he said. “It will be like taking out the soul from the body.”
The SIR Controversy as Unspoken Context
Although Justice Bhuyan did not mention the SIR exercise by name, his remarks echo the legal challenges that have been mounted against it. The SIR process—a door-to-door verification and revision of electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission—has been criticised for allegedly deleting names of eligible voters en masse, often without adequate notice or hearing. Petitions challenging the exercise were filed in several states, and the , in a judgment delivered on , ultimately upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the SIR and declined to stay it during the pendency of the writ petitions.
Justice Bhuyan’s address suggests that, regardless of the Court’s ultimate holding on the SIR, the constitutional principles at stake remain paramount. He declared that any process leading to wholesale disenfranchisement “strikes at the very heart of the Constitution” and constitutes “a negation of the constitutional order.” He added, “No amount of whataboutery can justify it.”
Against Deletion of Voters
Justice Bhuyan also underscored the that govern the deletion of names from electoral rolls under the . He referred to the ’s guidelines in , which mandate that the name of a voter once enlisted cannot be deleted without notice and an opportunity of hearing, except in the case of a deceased voter.
“Except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter once enlisted in the electoral roll cannot be deleted without ,” he said, quoting the judgment. This principle, he explained, is not merely procedural but substantive—it ensures that the state does not arbitrarily strip citizens of their constitutional right.
He further cited the ’s 2023 judgment in , which observed that a citizen’s cannot be divorced from and that the right to be a voter and to vote forms the foundation of . “The or to be included in the voters list cannot be separated from the status as a citizen,” Justice Bhuyan reiterated.
Equality and as Constitutional Bedrock
Justice Bhuyan also connected the to the equality principle enshrined in . , he argued, gives meaning and content to equality by ensuring that individuals across economic and social hierarchies have an equal say in governance. “The does not provide for two classes of citizens: citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights,” he said.
This is a crucial point for legal practitioners: the argument that mass disenfranchisement creates a de facto second-class citizenry, which is anathema to the constitutional scheme. Any process resulting in such an outcome, Justice Bhuyan stressed, would be “violative of Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Implications for Election Law Practice
Justice Bhuyan’s address carries significant weight for lawyers and judges dealing with election law and constitutional challenges to administrative actions. By firmly locating the within the , he has provided a powerful rhetorical and legal tool for future challenges to any procedure—whether the SIR or similar exercises—that threatens to disenfranchise large numbers of voters.
For practitioners, the key takeaways are clear: first, any challenge to electoral roll revisions should ground itself not merely in statutory provisions but in constitutional arguments under Articles 14 and 326. Second, the procedural requirement of before deletion is non-negotiable and must be strictly enforced. Third, the judiciary is duty-bound to guard against any process that undermines , even if the process is carried out by a constitutionally empowered body like the Election Commission.
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks also signal a willingness within the higher judiciary to treat large-scale disenfranchisement as a matter of constitutional gravity, potentially opening the door to public interest litigation or suo motu cognisance in appropriate cases. The reference to “no court can condone it” is a direct challenge to any judicial tendency to defer to executive discretion when fundamental constitutional values are at stake.
Conclusion
In a time when the integrity of electoral rolls is under scrutiny and concerns over voter exclusion remain live, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s valedictory address serves as a timely reminder of the constitutional stakes involved. His invocation of the , the equality guarantee, and the embedded in electoral law collectively reinforce a simple but profound truth: the is the soul of Indian democracy, and no process—however well-intentioned—can be allowed to extinguish it.
As the legal community digests his remarks, one thing is certain: the debate over the SIR and similar exercises is far from over. Justice Bhuyan has provided a constitutional roadmap for those who seek to protect the franchise, and his words will undoubtedly be cited in future challenges. The message is unequivocal—any process that makes millions of citizens second-class in their own country is unjustifiable, and no court can condone it.
