The process of disenfranchising millions and turning them into second-class citizens is arbitrary, says Justice Bhuyan

File photo of Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. | Photo credit: PTI

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday (October 4, 2026) said any process of disenfranchising millions of people who become disenfranchised second-class citizens is inherently arbitrary and violates universal adult suffrage and the right to equality.

Addressing the NALSAR in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan said that no amount of anything could justify mass exclusion of voters from the electoral rolls as such an action was fatal to the constitution.

The high court judge’s remarks came amid widespread agitations by students and youth for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Review (SIR) has so far led to the deletion of approximately 13.3 million voters from the electoral rolls.

Recently, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton F. Nariman drew attention to the “staggering figure” of 90 million disenfranchised voters in West Bengal alone and questioned why the figure did not prompt the Supreme Court to suspend the special intensive review process. He termed the exclusion of voters and the delay in deciding their recall as a “totally illegal exclusion of the common man, the citizen of India, for the government to get what it wants”.

On Sunday (October 4, 2026), Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens – those with voting rights and non-voting citizens.

Protest CEC Gyanesh Kumar Live Updates

“Any process which results in mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens making them disenfranchised would be a violation of Articles 326 (adult suffrage) and 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution if any process results in the disenfranchisement of millions and millions of Indian citizens making them second-class citizens in their own country, in the sense that such a number of citizens without of electoral rights was just a nuisance. It strikes at the very core of the Constitution,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Justice Bhuyan said no one can tamper with universal adult suffrage.

“No authority can do this; no court can approve this. No one is above the Constitution. The right to vote of Indian citizens is linked to the long years of India’s freedom struggle,” he said.

Constitutional law

The judge said that the right to be a voter is not only a legal right but a constitutional right that falls within the basic structure of the Constitution.

He said that citizenship and franchise are linked and cannot be separated from each other. The right to franchise was the very essence of citizenship. It was the only way the common citizen of India could participate in the governance of the country.

“The universal adult franchise is the right to vote for every adult citizen without qualification of sex, race, religion, wealth, education or social status, subject only to narrow, justified exceptions…

“Except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter entered in the electoral roll cannot be deleted without notice and hearing,” Justice Bhuyan said.

He was referring to how the Government of India Act 1935 dictated “partial concessions” to Indian subjects of the British Crown. People from “Part A” states could vote based on their qualifications, which included residence, taxation, property, literacy, community, marital status (for women), etc. They constituted only about 14% of the total population.

While the Constituent Assembly adopted full and universal adult suffrage, it found these restrictions arbitrary and retrograde. The nation’s founding fathers and mothers believed in the pragmatism and wisdom of ordinary Indians and took the first step towards equality.

“One may be a billionaire and one may be a rickshaw puller; yet both will have their votes and the value of their votes would be equal. Similarly, a socially high-ranking temple priest on the one hand and a person belonging to the lowest strata of society who is forced to work as a manual scavenger have the same vote with the same value. That is the transformational vision of the Indian constitution no,” Bhuyan said.

Published – 04 Oct 2026 18:20 IST