Ex-CJI Gavai, Retired Judges Cite "Judicial Propriety", Question Justice Bhuyan’s Remarks On SIR

Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi have questioned Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s public remarks on disenfranchisement, saying a sitting judge should not comment on an issue pending before the apex court. The remarks come amid petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Justice Bhuyan, speaking at the valedictory function of the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order.

He also said the Constitution does not envisage two classes of citizens — those with voting rights and those without them — and that no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process.

Gavai Says Remarks Breach Judicial Propriety

Reacting to Bhuyan’s comments, Gavai told PTI that judicial propriety does not permit a sitting judge to comment on a matter pending adjudication before the same court.

“He should not make any comment on a matter which is pending adjudication before the same court,” the former CJI said.

Retired Delhi High Court judge S N Dhingra also criticised Bhuyan’s remarks, saying they went beyond what was appropriate for a sitting Supreme Court judge.

“He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said, adding that Bhuyan did not have access to all the facts of the matter.

On allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took decisions relating to the SIR without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Dhingra said the commissioners themselves could speak about any disagreement.

Sodhi, meanwhile, questioned the description of SIR as disenfranchisement. He said voting rights are governed by the statutory framework and that those who meet the legal requirements are entitled to vote.

He said a person whose name was wrongly included in the electoral roll or who did not meet the legal requirements could seek a remedy under the law. Similarly, an eligible person whose name was left out could seek inclusion through the prescribed process.

Sodhi also rejected the suggestion that electoral-roll revision creates “second class” citizens, describing such remarks as “hardline” and lacking a rational approach.

Bhuyan’s Remarks Come Amid SIR Case Before SC

Bhuyan’s comments came as petitions challenging the SIR exercise remain pending before the Supreme Court. The court has also sought responses in a separate plea alleging that Gyanesh Kumar took certain SIR-related decisions without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. The Supreme Court declined to pass an interim order suspending Kumar while seeking responses from the concerned authorities.

The SIR controversy has centred on the revision and verification of electoral rolls, with petitioners raising concerns over the exclusion of eligible voters. The Election Commission has defended its process, while the Supreme Court has indicated that it could intervene if unlawful decisions are established.

Justice Bhuyan, who previously served as Chancellor of NALSAR, made the remarks while addressing students at the university. He praised the participants in the moot court competition, describing them as “brilliant”, “bold” and “brave”.

The university had also recently been in the news after some students and alumni opposed a reported proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at its convocation.