Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuiyan said, depriving the right to vote is a violation of the Constitution.

Published 1 minute ago

Reading Time: 9 minutes

Amid the ongoing controversy regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that no one can tamper with the right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution.

Justice Bhuinya was speaking at the closing ceremony of the Justice Bodh Raj Sahni Memorial Moot Court Competition organized at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad on Sunday.

During this, he said that any such process which 'deprives a large number of Indian citizens of the right to vote and they become citizens without the right to vote, would be a violation of the Constitution.'

He said that citing other cases to justify this cannot be justified.

Justice Bhuiyan said that depriving an Indian citizen of his right to vote would be like 'removing the soul from the body'.

His comments have come at a time when petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the SIR process in many states across the country. The opposition alleges that SIR is not being conducted properly and through this, names of crores of people have been removed from the voter list.

Last week, an investigative report by the English newspaper 'Indian Express' said that there were differences between Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and two election commissioners regarding the SIR.

What did Ujjal Bhuiyan say?

According to legal news and analysis website Bar & Bench, Justice Bhuyan said at the event in Hyderabad, "If due to some process, millions of Indian citizens are deprived of the right to vote and are made second-class citizens in their own country, that is, a citizen who does not have the right to vote, then such a process is arbitrary in itself." This cannot be justified in any way by citing other cases.

Skip to Most Read Skip to content

most read

finished

skip ahead podcast

Dinbhar: Same voice, new style

Big news from the country and the world that made headlines.

episode

finished

He said that Article 325 of the Constitution says that there shall be a common electoral list for every territorial constituency for elections to the Lok Sabha or to the Legislative Assembly of a State. No person shall be disqualified from inclusion in that list on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.

He said, "According to Article 326 of the Constitution, elections for the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of every state will be held on the basis of adult franchise. That is, every citizen of India, who is 18 years of age or more (before March 28, 1989, this age was 21 years) and who has not been disqualified under the Constitution or related law on the grounds of non-residence, mental unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal conduct, will be entitled to be registered as a voter in such election.

Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, Justice Bhuyan said, “While justifying Universal Adult Suffrage, Dr Ambedkar had said that since we have taken an important decision which almost completely changes the past, it is better to clearly state in the Constitution that this is the basis on which Articles 289A and 289B were included in the Draft Constitution, which are now Articles 325 and There are 326."

Who is Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan?

According to the website of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan was born on 2 August 1964 in Guwahati. His father Suchendra Nath Bhuiyan was a senior lawyer and former Advocate General of Assam.

He completed his schooling from Don Bosco High School, Guwahati and then studied at Cotton College, Guwahati.

After completing BA from Kirori Mal College, Delhi, he obtained LLB from Government Law College, Guwahati and LLM from Gauhati University.

He practiced in the principal bench of the Gauhati High Court and also appeared in the benches of Agartala, Shillong, Kohima and Itanagar.

He was the standing counsel of the Income Tax Department for about 16 years. In May 1995, he started working as Junior Standing Counsel.

In July 2011, he was appointed Additional Advocate General of Assam.

In 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended him to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India. After this, on July 14, 2023, he was appointed judge of the Supreme Court.

As Chief Justice of Telangana High Court, he also served as Chancellor of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR). He remained in this post until he became a judge of the Supreme Court.

Justice Bhuiyan's association with the field of legal education has also continued. He is a member of the General Council and Executive Council of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is also a member of the General Council of Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad.

Some famous decisions of Justice Bhuiyan

V. Vasantha Mogli vs. Government of Telangana (2023) – Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had declared the colonial-era Telangana Enoch Act of 1919 unconstitutional. He had said that this law violates the dignity and rights of transgender people under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) – While agreeing with the decision to grant bail to Arvind Kejriwal, Justice Bhuyan had raised questions on the timing of the arrest made by the CBI. He had said that it seems that the purpose of the arrest was to nullify the bail granted earlier in the ED case.

Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India vs. Vanashakti (2025) – Justice Bhuyan dissented on the issue of granting environmental clearances later. He had said in this matter that the effect of environmental laws should not be weakened through retrospective approval.

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited (2025) – In this case, Justice Bhuyan said that the criteria of necessity and proportionality should be strictly followed for issuing instructions to remove online content.

some popular comments

Eating biryani in Ganga is not a crime - Justice Bhuiyan had made important comments in the case of youth arrested for eating iftar in Ganga in Varanasi during Ramzan in March 2026. On being denied bail after the arrest of 14 people on charges of eating chicken, he had said that eating chicken in the Ganga is not a crime.

Citing this case during a lecture in Bhopal, he had said that the growing tendency to criminalize common and everyday activities and limit peaceful dissent is a matter of concern for democratic freedom.

He had said that democratic rights and freedoms should be protected at all costs.

It is wrong to threaten students for having different opinions or asking uncomfortable questions - This year, Justice Bhuyan had said in a program at the National Law University in New Delhi that disciplinary action or punishment should not be threatened against students just for having different opinions and raising uncomfortable questions.

He had said that such action is unconstitutional and amounts to abuse of rights and power. Justice Bhuiyan had said that the university should be a place where independent thinking is encouraged and students feel confident in asking challenging questions without any fear.

He had said that campuses are places where young minds come face to face with ideas different from their own thoughts and beliefs. Universities should be encouraged to question and investigate established beliefs.

Not being given a house because of being Muslim is against constitutional values ​​- In February 2026, in a seminar organized by Telangana Judges Association and Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, he had mentioned the cases where people are not given houses because of being Muslim.

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan had said that people of Muslim community are still refused to rent houses on the basis of their identity. He said that such practices reflect the prejudices present in the society, which are not in accordance with constitutional values.

He had said, “Such practices show the gap between constitutional ideals and social practice.” According to him, the Constitution guarantees equality, dignity and fraternity and any kind of discrimination in the right to own a house is contrary to these constitutional guarantees.

He had said that despite the guarantee of equality and protection from discrimination in the Constitution, such discrimination still continues in some sections of the society.