Ex-CJI Gavai, Former Judges Question Justice Bhuyan’s Remarks On Electoral Roll Revision

Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and two retired Delhi High Court judges have criticised Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that a sitting judge should avoid commenting publicly on a matter pending before the apex court.

Justice Bhuyan, delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law on Sunday, said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order. He also said the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens, one with voting rights and another without them, and that no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process.

Gavai Raises Question Of Judicial Propriety

Responding to Justice Bhuyan’s comments, Gavai said judicial propriety would not permit a judge to comment on a matter that is sub judice. “Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” the former CJI said.

Gavai maintained that a sitting Supreme Court judge should not publicly comment on an issue awaiting adjudication before the same court. His objection places the focus not only on what Justice Bhuyan said, but also on whether sitting judges should publicly enter debates involving matters that could come before their own institution.

Retired Delhi HC Judges Join Criticism

Retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi echoed Gavai’s concerns. Dhingra said Justice Bhuyan’s statement was “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge”, particularly when the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.

“He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said, adding that Justice Bhuyan did not know the full facts of the issue.

Asked about reports that decisions concerning the SIR were allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Dhingra said the Election Commissioners were capable of speaking for themselves about any disagreement, PTI reports.

“They are all top bureaucrats of the country sitting at very important positions. They can speak for themselves. There is no need for anyone to speak on their behalf,” he said.

Sodhi Questions ‘Disenfranchisement’ Argument

Sodhi questioned describing the SIR exercise as disenfranchisement, arguing that voting rights are governed by the statutory framework.

“Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” Sodhi said.

He said that if a person’s name was wrongly included in an electoral roll, or the person did not meet statutory requirements, the legal process should be followed for deletion. Those eligible could seek inclusion again.

Sodhi also questioned the argument that such an exercise would make citizens “second class” in their own country, saying such “hardline” statements did not represent a rational approach.

“I mean, these hardline thinking and these hardline statements, to my mind, are not a very mature way of looking at a thing, especially when you are supposed to be in a field which is supposed to be excellent in its rationalising,” he said.

According to Sodhi, the central questions should instead be whether a person is legally entitled to remain on the electoral roll and whether the prescribed statutory procedure has been followed.

SIR Issue Pending Before Supreme Court

The competing views underline a sensitive institutional question: how far should a sitting judge go in publicly discussing an issue when related legal challenges are pending before the Supreme Court? While Justice Bhuyan framed the matter in terms of constitutional citizenship and voting rights, the former judges have questioned both his reasoning and the propriety of making such remarks at this stage.

Pleas concerning the SIR exercise and several related issues are pending before the Supreme Court. These include a challenge involving the validity of the new law concerning the Election Commission that excludes the Chief Justice of India from the panel responsible for selecting Election Commissioners.

Bhuyan Praises NALSAR Students

Justice Bhuyan has previously expressed views on issues being discussed in the public domain. NALSAR University of Law was recently in the news after a section of its students wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, registrar and professors opposing any proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for the university’s convocation.

Justice Bhuyan, who served as Chancellor of NALSAR, praised the university’s students during Sunday’s event and said he could legitimately be proud of them.

“You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, that too, a student of law, should be like. You are brilliant. You are bold and you are brave,” he said.