Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and two retired Delhi High Court judges have criticised sitting Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan over his recent remarks on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, questioning the propriety of a serving judge publicly commenting on an issue that is pending before the Supreme Court, as reported in OpIndia.
Justice Bhuyan made the remarks during his valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, 4 October 2026.
Although he did not directly name the SIR exercise, Bhuyan said that any process that resulted in millions of citizens losing their voting rights would be “intrinsically arbitrary” and amount to a “negation” of the constitutional order.
His remarks came just a day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear petitions concerning the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.
On Monday, October 5, the Supreme Court declined to pass an ex parte order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, instead directing that the Election Commission and other respondents be heard before any such relief is considered.
Ex-CJI Gavai Questions Judicial Propriety
Asked about Justice Bhuyan’s remarks, former CJI B R Gavai declined to comment on the merits of the SIR controversy, pointing out that the matter was already before the Supreme Court.
“Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” Gavai said.
Gavai’s remarks focused on judicial propriety rather than the merits of the SIR dispute. His position was that a sitting Supreme Court judge should exercise restraint when publicly commenting on an issue that could come before the court for adjudication.
Retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi also criticised Bhuyan’s comments.
Dhingra was particularly critical, saying that the judge should have exercised greater caution before making such remarks at a public event.
“He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said.
Dhingra also argued that Bhuyan did not have the benefit of the complete facts surrounding the issue and questioned the appropriateness of making such observations publicly while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
What Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Said About SIR
Speaking at NALSAR, Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution did not create two categories of citizens, those who have voting rights and those who do not.
He argued that depriving a large number of citizens of their voting rights would strike at the heart of the constitutional system.
“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,” Bhuyan said.
He further stated, “No amount of whataboutery can justify it. It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution, and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the constitutional order which we have adopted under the Constitution of India.”
Bhuyan added, “No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution.”
The remarks came amid the ongoing legal and political dispute over the SIR exercise and questions surrounding the revision of electoral rolls.
Retired Judge Questions ‘Disenfranchisement’ Claim
Retired Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi, meanwhile, questioned whether the SIR exercise could simply be characterised as “disenfranchisement”.
Sodhi pointed out that voting rights are governed by the statutory framework and that eligibility must be determined according to the law.
“Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” Sodhi said.
He noted that the law provides mechanisms for dealing with names that have been wrongly included in electoral rolls as well as procedures through which eligible persons can seek inclusion.
Sodhi also questioned the description of people whose names are removed from electoral rolls as becoming “second class” citizens.
He argued that such a characterisation was too rigid for an issue that required an examination of the relevant law and facts.
“I mean, this hardline thinking and these hardline statements, to my mind, are not a very mature way of looking at a thing, especially when you are supposed to be in a field which is supposed to be excellent in its rationalising,” he said.
SIR Case Still Before Supreme Court
The controversy over Justice Bhuyan’s remarks comes as multiple petitions concerning the SIR exercise and the functioning of the Election Commission remain pending before the Supreme Court.
The petitions include allegations concerning decisions taken by CEC Gyanesh Kumar and questions over the conduct of the electoral-roll revision.
On Monday, 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court declined to immediately suspend Gyanesh Kumar without hearing the other side.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh had argued for interim intervention, saying, “The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn.”
The bench, however, chose to seek responses from the Election Commission and other respondents before considering the matter further.
The timing of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks has consequently attracted attention, coming just a day before the hearing. Whether those remarks have any bearing on the eventual adjudication of the SIR petitions, however, remains for the judicial process to determine.
Justice Bhuyan Praises NALSAR Students
Justice Bhuyan, who previously served as Chancellor of NALSAR, also spoke about the university’s students during the same event.
NALSAR had recently been in the news after some students opposed a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for the university’s convocation.
Referring to the students, Bhuyan said, “You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, that too, a student of law, should be like. You are brilliant. You are bold, and you are brave.”
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
