Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan used an October 4 address at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad to argue that large-scale deprivation of Indian citizens’ voting rights would undermine the Constitution. Speaking at the closing ceremony of the nineteenth Justice B. R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition, he linked the franchise to equality, citizenship and participation in government. LiveLaw, NDTV and PTI separately reported the remarks.
The judge said a process that left millions of citizens unable to vote would be arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 326. His central argument was that the constitutional framework does not contemplate one category of citizens who can participate in elections and another who remain citizens but lose that political voice. He described voting as central to free and fair elections and, in his view, to the Constitution’s basic structure.
These were remarks in a university speech, not a judgment deciding an electoral dispute. LiveLaw and NDTV expressly reported that Justice Bhuyan did not identify the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision by name. The address came during controversy over that exercise, but it did not cancel a revision, restore particular names to a roll, or decide allegations against an election official. Those distinctions matter when interpreting the speech’s implications.
On procedure, Justice Bhuyan emphasised notice and an opportunity to be heard before an existing voter’s name is removed, apart from the case of a deceased voter. LiveLaw reported his reference to the Supreme Court’s Lal Babu Hussain decision on safeguards against deletion. He also discussed the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment while explaining why registration as a voter and the ability to vote are foundational to free and fair elections.
He acknowledged that Supreme Court decisions have distinguished the right to vote from a fundamental right, while recognising its constitutional basis. Referring to the People’s Union for Civil Liberties case, he said legislation may regulate how voting rights are exercised, but must remain within constitutional limits. His discussion focused on Article 326’s adult-suffrage guarantee and Article 325’s protection of a common electoral roll against exclusion solely on specified identity grounds.
The Indian Express reported a further historical strand of the address: the relationship between the freedom struggle, Constituent Assembly deliberations and the adoption of universal adult franchise. Justice Bhuyan illustrated equal political worth by comparing the votes of people at very different economic and social positions. The argument concerned the equal value of participation, rather than a claim that a person’s income or occupation changes their electoral entitlement.
The October 4 development is the delivery of this address and its reported constitutional arguments. It adds a sitting judge’s public assessment to an ongoing debate but establishes no new case-specific remedy. The reviewed coverage includes detailed reporting by named correspondents; an authenticated written text issued by the judge or university was not available for independent review. A video link supplied by NDTV could not be retrieved during verification.