Judicial propriety bars remarks on SIR: Ex-CJI Gavai, retired judges slam Bhuyan’s remarks

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, Oct 6, 2026: Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said judicial propriety would prevent a sitting Supreme Court judge from commenting publicly on an issue that is currently pending before the court.

Gavai was reacting to remarks by Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who, while delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law on Sunday, criticised any process that could “disenfranchise” millions of citizens.

Bhuyan described such a process as “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order. He said the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens — one with voting rights and another without — and that “whataboutery” could not justify such a process.

He also said that, except in the case of a deceased person, a voter’s name cannot be removed from the electoral roll without giving the individual notice and an opportunity to be heard. Referring to Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, Bhuyan said due process was required before an elector could be disenfranchised.

Reacting to the remarks, Gavai told PTI that judicial propriety would not permit Bhuyan to comment on a matter that was sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Former Delhi High Court judge Justice S N Dhingra also criticised Bhuyan’s remarks, saying they went “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge”. He said such observations should not have been made at a public event while the matter remained pending before the apex court.

Dhingra said Bhuyan should have exercised greater caution before making such statements and added that the judge did not have access to all the facts of the case.

On reports that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Dhingra said the commissioners were capable of speaking for themselves.

“They are all top bureaucrats of the country sitting at very important positions. They can speak for themselves. There is no need for anyone to speak on their behalf,” he said.

Former Delhi High Court judge Justice Rajiv Shakdher Sodhi also questioned the description of the SIR exercise as disenfranchisement, saying voting rights were governed by the statutory framework.

He said eligibility to vote depended on whether a person met the requirements prescribed by law. If a name was wrongly included in an electoral roll or an individual did not meet the statutory requirements, the appropriate course was to follow the legal process for deletion or seek inclusion again if eligible.

Sodhi also questioned claims that the exercise was turning citizens into “second class” citizens, describing such “hardline” assertions as an irrational way of approaching the issue.

He said the focus should instead remain on whether an individual was legally entitled to be on the electoral roll and whether the prescribed statutory procedure had been followed.

Petitions challenging the SIR exercise, along with pleas on other issues including a new law governing the selection of the Election Commission that excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, are pending before the Supreme Court.

Bhuyan, who previously served as Chancellor of NALSAR, has been known for expressing his views on issues in the public domain.

NALSAR was recently in the news after some students wrote to the university’s vice-chancellor, registrar and professors opposing any proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at its convocation.

Addressing Sunday’s event, Bhuyan praised the students and said they had demonstrated what university and law students should be like.

“You are brilliant. You are bold and you are brave,” he said.