Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday said any process that results in the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens is “intrinsically arbitrary” and amounts to a negation of the constitutional order. “No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan, who delivered the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, said the Indian Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens — one with voting rights and another without them.
Any process that leads to the wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens, leaving them without voting rights, would violate Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution, he 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 a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” he said.
“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 that we have adopted under the Constitution of India,” he added.
Observing that the right to vote of Indian citizens is intertwined with the country’s long struggle against foreign rule, he said it was a manifestation of the freedom achieved after years of struggle and sacrifice. Article 326, he said, “cannot be tinkered with at all”.
“No authority can do it; no court can endorse it or condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan said the right to vote, or the right to be a voter, is not merely a statutory right flowing from parliamentary legislation such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but a constitutional right that forms a distinct part of democracy itself and is situated within the framework of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Citing a Supreme Court order, he said the apex court had observed that a citizen’s right to vote cannot be divorced or separated from the mandate of Article 326.
“The right of a citizen to be a voter and to vote is of the greatest importance and forms the foundation of free and fair elections,” he said.
Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act permits the deletion of an entry from the electoral roll, but only after the voter has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, he said.
Citing another Supreme Court judgment, Justice Bhuyan said the court had laid down guidelines to be followed in cases involving the deletion of voters from electoral rolls.
Except in the case of a deceased person, the name of a voter once entered on the electoral roll cannot be deleted without notice and an opportunity to be heard, he said.
“From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or the right to be included in the voters’ list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan said US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter had expressed the view that, in a democracy, the highest office is not that of the President but that of the citizen.
He further quoted Frankfurter as saying: “Democracy is always a beckoning goal, not a safe harbour; for freedom is an unremitting endeavour, never a final achievement.”
“I ask myself, what is the worth of a citizen without his/her voting rights?” Justice Bhuyan asked.
Justice Bhuyan, who previously served as Chancellor of NALSAR, said he could be legitimately proud of the institution’s students.
“You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, and that too, a student of law, should be like. You are brilliant. You are bold and you are brave,” he said.
He also lauded NALSAR’s faculty members, saying they had performed their duties admirably and done what university teachers are expected to do.
Complimenting NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao, he said Rao had led the university admirably.
(With inputs from PTI)