Voting Rights Constitutional Protection
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Warns Mass Voter Disenfranchisement Violates the Constitution
Anonymous
Key Points
1
Bhuyan said the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is not a fundamental right, but is a constitutional right flowing from Article 326; he added that, in his view, the right to vote is central to the basic-structure doctrine.
2
He described voting as the only way an ordinary Indian citizen can participate in the country’s governance, and said the right to vote and the right to be included on the electoral roll could not be separated from citizenship.
3
The Wire’s report said the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of voter rolls had resulted in 13 crore names being removed, and characterised Bhuyan’s remarks as a sharp rebuke of that process.
4
Bhuyan said Article 326, which provides for elections based on adult suffrage, “cannot be tinkered with at all.”
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a stern warning that any process removing millions of Indian citizens from voter rolls violates the Constitution. Indian Express reported that Bhuyan said mass disenfranchisement would breach Articles 326 and 14, and that no authority can justify creating separate classes of citizens with and without voting rights.
The remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear cases about the Election Commission's recent voter roll revision, which The Wire reported had removed 13 crore names. Bhuyan stressed that voting is not just a legal right—it is central to what it means to be a citizen in India's democracy.
The Right to Vote Cannot Be Separated From Citizenship
Justice Bhuyan said voting is the only meaningful way ordinary Indians participate in their own government. The Federal reported that he called the right to vote a constitutional right flowing directly from Article 326, which guarantees elections based on adult suffrage. He went further, arguing that voting should be treated as part of the Constitution's basic structure—the foundation that cannot be changed.
Bhuyan emphasized that the right to vote and the right to be on the electoral roll are inseparable from citizenship itself. He said Article 326 'cannot be tinkered with at all,' signaling that any tampering with voting rights strikes at the heart of India's constitutional order.
No Authority Can Justify Removing Voters Without Due Process
Justice Bhuyan made clear that disenfranchisement requires strict procedural safeguards. He said names should never be removed from voter rolls without written notice and a chance for citizens to respond—except in cases of death. Tribune India reported that Bhuyan called any process that bypasses these protections 'intrinsically arbitrary' and destructive to the constitutional order.
The Justice rejected arguments that could be used to defend mass removals. 'No amount of whataboutery can justify a process disenfranchising millions,' he stated, signaling that comparisons to other countries or past practices cannot excuse wholesale voter purges.
Context: 13 Crore Voters Removed in Recent Revision
The Election Commission's special intensive revision of voter rolls has become controversial. The Wire reported that this process removed roughly 130 million names from electoral rolls across India. Many of those removed claim they received no notice and had no chance to object, prompting legal challenges in the Supreme Court.
Bhuyan's speech, delivered at a law school event, was widely read as a sharp rebuke of that process. Though he did not name the revision directly, his sweeping warnings about constitutional limits on disenfranchisement made clear his concern about what the Election Commission had done.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
49
Articles
54
Reach
103
Topics
A
AnonymousAuthor
