Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and other retired judges have criticized remarks made by Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concerning the Election Commission of India. Gavai stated that a sitting judge should refrain from commenting on matters that are sub judice 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.
Retired Delhi High Court judges SN Dhingra and RS Sodhi also questioned Bhuyan's statements. Justice Dhingra commented that Bhuyan's remarks were "way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge" and that such comments should not be made at a public event when the issue is pending before the same court.
"He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement," Dhingra added, suggesting that Justice Bhuyan might not have been aware of the full facts.
Justice RS Sodhi also criticized Justice Bhuyan for labeling the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise as disenfranchisement, asserting that the right to vote is governed by statutory provisions.
"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," Justice Sodhi explained.
Justice Bhuyan had previously stated that any process which "disenfranchises" millions of Indian citizens is "intrinsically arbitrary" and a "negation" of the constitutional order. Speaking at NALSAR University of Law, Justice Bhuyan argued that the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens based on voting rights, and that wholesale disenfranchisement would violate Articles 326 and 14. He emphasized that "No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution."
