‘No Two Classes Of Citizens’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan On Right To Vote And Mass Disenfranchisement Amid SIR Row

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on May 27 said the right of an Indian citizen to vote is integral to the basic structure of the Constitution, warning that any process leading to the mass disenfranchisement of citizens would be arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 326.

Delivering the valedictory address at the '19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026', Bhuyan said the right to vote was a constitutional right flowing from Article 326, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage.

His remarks came amid the continuing controversy over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has raised concerns over the exclusion of eligible voters. Although Bhuyan did not specifically name the exercise, he linked the right to vote to equality, citizenship and the constitutional order.

“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,” he said, reported Live Law.

Bhuyan added that the right to vote was central to the basic structure doctrine and described the franchise as the essence of citizenship, allowing ordinary citizens to participate in the governance of the country.

Right To Vote And Electoral Roll Deletions

The Supreme Court judge noted that the court had held in several judgments that the right to vote was not a fundamental right. However, he referred to the ruling in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which recognised it as a constitutional right flowing from Article 326.

He said the right could be regulated only within the constitutional limits laid down under Articles 325 and 326. Article 326 provides for adult suffrage in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, subject to constitutionally recognised disqualifications.

Bhuyan also stressed the procedural safeguards governing the deletion of names from electoral rolls under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

“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 the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer.

He also cited the 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, linking the right to vote with the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections.

SIR In Supreme Court

The remarks came amid legal challenges to the ECI’s SIR exercise, including petitions concerning Bihar and West Bengal. The Supreme Court declined to stay the exercise while the petitions were pending.

The court subsequently upheld the SIR exercise and the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the revision in its May 27, 2026 judgment, after Assembly elections had been held in Bihar and several other states.