Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday, 4 October 2026, delivered a sharp rebuke of any electoral process that results in the wholesale exclusion of citizens from voter rolls, calling such a process 'intrinsically arbitrary' and a direct assault on the Constitution. His remarks came during the valedictory address of the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Key Remarks from Justice Bhuyan

Speaking to an audience of law students and legal scholars, Justice Bhuyan said: '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. No amount of whataboutery can justify it.'

He emphasised that the Indian Constitution does not contemplate two classes of citizens — one with voting rights and another without. Invoking Article 326 (universal adult suffrage) and Article 14 (right to equality), he declared: 'No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution.'

Right to Vote as Basic Structure

Justice Bhuyan underlined that the right to vote is deeply intertwined with India's freedom struggle and forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He asserted that Article 326 'cannot be tinkered with at all.' He further held that except in the case of a deceased voter, no name can be deleted from the electoral rolls without notice and a hearing — a procedural safeguard he described as constitutionally non-negotiable.

Detaching the right to vote from citizenship, he remarked, would be 'like taking out the soul from the body' — a formulation that underscores the foundational nature of adult suffrage to Indian democratic identity.

Context: Electoral Roll Deletions Under Scrutiny

The remarks carry significant weight amid ongoing controversies surrounding large-scale deletions reportedly carried out under the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Related petitions are currently pending before the Supreme Court. Critics have alleged that the revision process has disproportionately affected marginalised communities, though the Election Commission has defended the exercise as a legitimate update of voter data.

Notably, this is not the first time judicial voices have raised concerns about the process — but Justice Bhuyan's formulation, framing mass disenfranchisement as constitutionally impermissible on its face, goes further than prior cautionary observations.

Broader Constitutional Implications

Justice Bhuyan's observations reinforce the judiciary's role as a guardian of adult suffrage, which courts have consistently held to be a cornerstone of Indian democracy. The invocation of the basic structure doctrine — under which Parliament itself cannot amend certain constitutional provisions — signals that any legislative or administrative attempt to whittle down voting rights faces an extremely high constitutional bar.

As petitions challenging electoral roll deletions await hearing, the Supreme Court's eventual ruling on the matter is expected to set binding precedent on the procedural safeguards required before any citizen's name is struck off the rolls.