Any Process Taking Away Voting Rights Of Millions Of Citizens Is Unjustifiable, No Court Can Condone It: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan today said that the right of an Indian citizen to vote is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any process resulting in the mass disenfranchisement of citizens would be intrinsically arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution.

Delivering the valedictory address at the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026, Justice Bhuyan highlighted that the right to vote is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional right flowing from Article 326, which guarantees elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage.

He said that the Indian Constitution does not envisage two classes of citizens – those with voting rights and those without them. Any process that results in the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens, effectively making them second-class citizens in their own country, would violate the constitutional scheme, he said.

“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 voting rights, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it. 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 under the Constitution of India,” he said.

Although Justice Bhuyan did not explicitly refer to the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, his remarks come amid ongoing controversy surrounding the SIR exercise which has raised significant concerns regarding exclusion of eligible voters.

Justice Bhuyan emphasised that the right to vote is central to free and fair elections, which have been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution.

“Therefore, in my view, the right of an Indian citizen to cast his vote is central to the basic structure doctrine itself. In fact, the right of franchise is the very essence of citizenship. It is the only way an ordinary citizen of India can participate in the governance of the country,” he said.

He stressed that no court can condone a process that undermines the constitutional guarantee of adult suffrage.

“Indian citizens' right to vote is intertwined with India's long years of struggle against foreign rule. It is a manifestation of our freedom achieved after so much of struggle and sacrifice. Article 326 cannot be tinkered with at all. No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said.

Justice Bhuyan's observation assumes significance in the backdrop of Supreme Court's judgment in writ petitions challenging SIR exercise in several states including Bihar and West Bengal. The Court declined to temporarily stay the SIR process during the pendency of writ petitions challenging the its constitutionality. It eventually upheld the impugned SIR exercise as well as ECI's power to conduct SIR in its May 27, 2026 judgment. The judgment came after the exercise had been completed and Assembly elections held in Bihar and several other states.

Right To Vote Is A Constitutional Right

Justice Bhuyan acknowledged that the Supreme Court has, in several judgments, held that the right to vote is not a fundamental right. However, he emphasised that as per the decision in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, the right to vote is certainly a constitutional right and originates from Article 326.

He said that while legislation may regulate the exercise of the right, any such law must remain within the parameters of Articles 325 and 326.

Under Article 326, a person who has attained the age of 18 years is entitled to vote in the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, subject to disqualifications permitted under the Constitution, including non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practices.

“Any law infringing these parameters will be void,” he said, adding that it was equally necessary to ensure that administrative exercises do not irrationally or unreasonably curtail the right to vote.

Justice Bhuyan highlighted that universal adult suffrage was a central feature of the country's freedom struggle and a foundational principle of the Constitution. He said that Article 326 gives meaning and content to the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The right to vote ensures that individuals across economic and social hierarchies have an equal say in the governance of the country.

Voters Cannot Be Deleted From Electoral Rolls Without Notice And Hearing

Justice Bhuyan also emphasised the procedural safeguards applicable to the deletion of names from electoral rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which permits the deletion of an entry only after the voter has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Referring to the, he said that the Court had laid down guidelines for the deletion of voters' names, including the issuance of notice and the provision of an opportunity of hearing to the affected voter.

“Except in the case of a dead voter, the name of a voter once enlisted in the electoral roll cannot be deleted without notice and hearing,” he said, referring to Supreme Court's judgment in Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer.

He also referred to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, in which the Court observed that a citizen's right to vote cannot be divorced from Article 326 and the right to be a voter and to vote forms the foundation of free and fair elections.

Justice Bhuyan stressed that a citizen's right to vote or to be included in the electoral roll cannot be separated from the status as a citizen.

“From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or right to be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body. Indian Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens: citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights. Any process which leads to wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens making them citizens without voting rights would be violative of Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution of India”, he said.