Process disenfranchising millions, turning them to second class citizens is arbitrary, says Justice Bhuyan
Source Entity
India Latest News: Top National Headlines Today & Breaking News | The Hindu
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has criticized the mass disenfranchisement of citizens, calling the exclusion of voters via electoral roll revisions fundamentally unconstitutional. He emphasized that the right to vote is central to the Indian constitutional order and cannot be justified by administrative excuses.
The Constitutional Imperative of Universal Suffrage
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has delivered a scathing critique regarding the mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens, specifically addressing the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Speaking at the Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court competition in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan argued that any administrative process leading to the wholesale exclusion of voters is "intrinsically arbitrary" and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the Indian Constitution.
Defining the Constitutional Order
At the core of Justice Bhuyan’s argument is the rejection of a bifurcated citizenry. He emphasized that the Indian Constitution does not envision two classes of people: those who possess the right to vote and those who are denied it. By stripping millions of their voting rights, the state risks creating a tier of "second-class citizens," a move that he asserts would strike at the very heart of the democratic structure and serve as a "negation of the constitutional order" that the nation has adopted.
The "Soul" of Democracy
Justice Bhuyan utilized a powerful metaphor, stating that detaching an Indian citizen from their right to vote is akin to "taking out the soul from the body." This highlights the gravity of the ongoing legal challenges regarding the SIR process. In the context of constitutional law, the right to vote is not merely a statutory privilege but a foundational element of political equality. When administrative revisions threaten this right on a mass scale, the judiciary is tasked with ensuring that procedural technicalities do not supersede fundamental civil liberties.
Rejecting Administrative 'Whataboutery'
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Justice's remarks is the dismissal of "whataboutery" as a justification for disenfranchisement. In political and legal discourse, whataboutery is often used to deflect criticism by pointing to unrelated issues or previous administrative actions. Justice Bhuyan’s warning serves as a stern reminder that administrative expediency or historical precedent cannot be invoked to bypass constitutional protections. No justification, he maintains, can render the mass denial of the franchise legitimate.
Broader Implications and Future Trends
This judicial intervention comes at a sensitive time as petitions challenging the SIR process continue to move through the Supreme Court. The remarks signal a potential shift in how the judiciary may scrutinize the Election Commission’s administrative procedures. If the court continues to prioritize the sanctity of the vote over bureaucratic revisions, it may force a significant overhaul in how voter rolls are managed and audited to ensure transparency and inclusivity. Moving forward, this case will likely serve as a benchmark for protecting the integrity of the electoral process against administrative overreach.
Verification Required?