Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and two retired Delhi High Court judges on Monday slammed Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's remarks on disenfranchisement, saying a sitting judge should not comment publicly on an issue pending before the apex court.
Justice Bhuyan, speaking at the valedictory function of the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law on Sunday, had said any process that "disenfranchises" millions of citizens was "intrinsically arbitrary" and a "negation" of the constitutional order.
He also said the Constitution does not envisage two classes of citizens, those with voting rights and those without them, and that no amount of "whataboutery" could justify such a process.
Reacting to the remarks, Gavai told PTI that "judicial propriety" would not permit a sitting judge to comment on a matter that is sub judice before the court.
"He should not make any comment on a matter which is pending adjudication before the same court," the former CJI said.
Retired Delhi High Court judges S N Dhingra and R S Sodhi also questioned Bhuyan's remarks.
Dhingra said the statement was "way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge", arguing that such comments should not have been made at a public event when the issue was before the Supreme Court.
"He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement," Dhingra said, adding that Bhuyan did not have access to all the facts of the matter.
On allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Dhingra said the commissioners themselves could speak about any disagreement.
Sodhi, meanwhile, questioned the characterisation of SIR as disenfranchisement, saying voting rights are governed by the statutory framework.
"Whether you have a vote or you don't have a vote depends upon the statute," he said, adding that those who meet the statutory requirements have the right to vote.
He said a person whose name was wrongly included in the electoral roll, or who did not meet the legal requirements, could seek a remedy under the law. Similarly, an eligible person whose name was excluded could seek inclusion through the prescribed process.
Sodhi also rejected the suggestion that the electoral revision process creates "second class" citizens, describing such statements as "hardline" and lacking a rational approach.
The remarks come as petitions challenging the SIR exercise are pending before the Supreme Court. The apex court is also hearing pleas challenging a new law governing the appointment of election commissioners, including a provision that excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel.
Bhuyan, who previously served as Chancellor of NALSAR, made the remarks while addressing students at the university. He praised them for being "brilliant", "bold" and "brave" and said he was proud of their conduct.
The university had recently been in the news after some students opposed a reported proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at its convocation.
(With inputs from PTI)