Ex-CJI B R Gavai and retired judges criticise Justice Ujjal Bhuyan over voter roll remarks

Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and several retired judges have openly criticised sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, accusing him of breaching judicial propriety with public remarks about a highly sensitive case currently active before the top court.

The row stems from comments Justice Bhuyan made on Sunday concerning the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has seen millions of names deleted from voter lists. Speaking at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan argued that any process disenfranchising millions of Indian citizens is "intrinsically arbitrary" and represents a "negation" of the country's constitutional order.

But legal veterans say a sitting judge of the apex court has no business lecturing on a matter that he or his colleagues might soon have to decide.

"Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court," former CJI Gavai said in remarks to the news agency PTI on Monday. He added that a sitting judge of the Supreme Court should never make statements on issues pending adjudication before the same court.

Retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi were even sharper in their criticism.

Justice Dhingra called the comments "way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge," suggesting that Justice Bhuyan "should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement" and did not have a full grasp of the facts.

Asked about allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had driven the electoral roll decisions without the agreement of other commissioners, Justice Dhingra said there was no need for outsiders to intervene. "They are all top bureaucrats of the country sitting at very important positions," he said. "They can speak for themselves."

Justice Sodhi took issue with the sitting judge's characterisation of the voter list revision as a form of disenfranchisement that creates "second-class citizens". He argued that the right to vote is strictly a statutory matter, not a broad constitutional free-for-all.

"Whether you have a vote or you don't have a vote depends upon the statute," Justice Sodhi said. He added that hardline statements of this kind do not show "a very mature way of looking at a thing," especially from a member of the judiciary expected to display rational analysis. If names were incorrectly handled, he said, the correct path is to follow legal procedures to fix the rolls.

The Supreme Court is currently considering several petitions challenging the SIR exercise. The court is also reviewing a controversial new law that removed the Chief Justice of India from the panel responsible for selecting election commissioners.

Justice Bhuyan, who has a history of speaking out on public debates, also praised NALSAR students during his speech. Some students had recently written to university officials protesting a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to their convocation. Justice Bhuyan, a former chancellor of the university, told the students he was proud of them, calling them "brilliant", "bold" and "brave".