Supreme Court judge Justice Bhuyan's strong remarks against voter disenfranchisement have ignited a political firestorm, providing the Opposition with significant ammunition to criticize the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Bhuyan declared that any exercise leading to the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is inherently arbitrary and a negation of the constitutional order, emphasizing the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right crucial to democracy. These observations have been interpreted by the Opposition as a clear indictment of the Chief Election Commissioner's actions and have intensified demands for his resignation amid reports of internal disagreements within the Election Commission concerning voter list revisions and allegations of electoral manipulation.

Supreme Court judge Justice Bhuyan's strong remarks against voter disenfranchisement have ignited a political firestorm, providing the Opposition with significant ammunition to criticize the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Bhuyan declared that any exercise leading to the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is inherently arbitrary and a negation of the constitutional order, emphasizing the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right crucial to democracy. These observations have been interpreted by the Opposition as a clear indictment of the Chief Election Commissioner's actions and have intensified demands for his resignation amid reports of internal disagreements within the Election Commission concerning voter list revisions and allegations of electoral manipulation.

Supreme Court judge Justice Bhuyan's strong remarks against voter disenfranchisement have ignited a political firestorm, providing the Opposition with significant ammunition to criticize the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Bhuyan declared that any exercise leading to the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is inherently arbitrary and a negation of the constitutional order, emphasizing the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right crucial to democracy. These observations have been interpreted by the Opposition as a clear indictment of the Chief Election Commissioner's actions and have intensified demands for his resignation amid reports of internal disagreements within the Election Commission concerning voter list revisions and allegations of electoral manipulation.

As the alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) have triggered a political storm and widespread protests, the scathing observations made by a Supreme Court judge on the  exercise have given the Opposition fresh ammunition.

Delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, Justice Bhuyan said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens would be “arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order.

“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 a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” he said, as quoted by Live Law.

Justice Bhuyan noted that the Constitution does not envisage two classes of citizens—one with voting rights and another without them.

“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 based on the Constitution of India,” he said.

He further observed that the right of Indian citizens to vote, or to be a voter, is not merely a statutory right flowing from parliamentary legislation such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but a constitutional right that forms an integral part of democracy itself.

“No authority can do it; no court can endorse it or condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Although Justice Bhuyan did not explicitly refer to the SIR process, his observations on disenfranchisement have added momentum to the Opposition’s campaign against the exercise. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh described the remarks as a vindication of the party’s allegations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

“The courageous jurist has forcefully expressed his view that the right to vote is very much part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This conclusively proves that the CEC—constitutional functionary himself—has violated the Constitution itself, both in letter and spirit,” Ramesh said.

“Justice Bhuyan has said much more and has exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. Gyanesh Kumar has simply lost all moral right to continue in office,” the Congress leader asserted.

The latest controversy erupted after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had repeatedly disagreed with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over voter-list revisions and the inclusion of new names.

According to the report, Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR, alleging that they had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The report triggered a fresh political controversy, with the Congress and other Opposition parties alleging that Kumar had enabled the BJP to “steal votes”.

TAGS