Disenfranchising Millions Makes Them Second-Class Citizens: SC Judge
Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan warns that any process turning millions into second-class citizens without voting rights is intrinsically arbitrary.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has issued a stern warning regarding any administrative or legal procedure that could strip millions of Indians of their fundamental right to vote. Speaking at a high-profile event in Hyderabad, the judge emphasized that such actions would be "intrinsically arbitrary" and would strike at the very core of the Indian Constitution.
A Blow to Constitutional Values
Addressing the valedictory ceremony of the 19th NALSAR BRS Moot Court Competition, Justice Bhuyan highlighted the gravity of losing voting rights. He noted that when a process results in the mass disenfranchisement of citizens, it effectively transforms them into "second-class citizens" within their own nation.
"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," Justice Bhuyan stated. He further added that no amount of political deflection or "whataboutery" could ever serve as a justification for such an outcome.
Context of the Electoral Roll Controversy
The judge's remarks arrive amidst a heated political atmosphere surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI). There has been significant tension regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with opposition leaders targeting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and demanding his resignation.
The controversy stems from concerns over how voter lists are being revised and whether certain groups are being unfairly excluded. While the opposition has raised alarms, the legal standing of these revisions has been a subject of intense debate in the highest courts.
The Supreme Court's Previous Stance on SIR
It is important to note the legal precedents already set by the apex court regarding these procedures. In May, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi upheld the ECI's SIR exercise, which was initially implemented in Bihar. The court's findings included several key points:
- Constitutionality: The court ruled that the SIR exercise is constitutional and legally tenable.
- Procedural Differences: The court held that the exercise cannot be struck down simply because it follows a process different from the ordinary, routine revision of voter rolls.
- Scope of Power: The bench clarified that the ECI's authority during this process is limited to determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls.
- Citizenship vs. Voting Rights: Crucially, the court stated that the ECI does not have the power to ascertain an individual's citizenship status.
The court further emphasized that the deletion of a name from a voter list does not automatically strip an individual of their citizenship. According to the ruling, citizenship can only be determined by the competent legal authorities under the established law.