Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on voter deletions: how far can a sitting judge speak, and what is the right to vote?

Judicial propriety and the right to vote: what happened?

Judges speak at law schools all the time. The trouble starts when the subject of the lecture is also sitting in a court file. Justice Bhuyan’s speech came while the West Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) litigation was still before the Supreme Court, so his words drew a sharp response from a former Chief Justice.

• On October 4, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, giving the valedictory address at a moot court competition at NALSAR University of Law, said the right to vote is constitutional and integral to the basic structure.
• He said a process disenfranchising millions would be arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 326; Article 326 “cannot be tinkered with” and “no court can condone” mass disenfranchisement.
• Citing Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, he stressed notice and a hearing before any deletion, except in the case of death.
• Former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said “judicial propriety” did not permit a sitting judge to comment on a sub judice matter. A day after the speech, Justice Vikram Nath said in a Delhi lecture: “Impartiality and indifference are not the same thing.”

What does the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life say?

• Adopted by the Full Court of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997.
• Clause 8: a judge shall not enter public debate or express views on political matters “or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination”.
• Clause 1 asks for conduct that keeps public faith in the impartiality of the judiciary.
• It is a code of ethics, not a law. Breach carries no penalty, though courts have relied on it.

Is the right to vote a Fundamental Right?

• No. It is not in Part III. UPSC’s official answer (Prelims 2017) treats it as a Constitutional Right; courts have also called it a statutory right.
• Article 326 provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage; every citizen aged 18 or more can vote unless disqualified by law.
• The voting age was cut from 21 to 18 by the 61st Amendment Act, 1988.
• Article 325: one general electoral roll for every constituency; no one is left out on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex.

Which provisions govern deletion of a voter’s name?

• Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections vests in the Election Commission.
• Section 22, Representation of the People Act, 1950: correction of entries in the roll; Justice Bhuyan relied on it to stress notice and hearing.
• Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: notice, inquiry, hearing and a reasoned decision before deletion (as the Court noted in ADR v. ECI, May 2026).

Why does judicial propriety and the right to vote matter?

What are the challenges in judicial propriety and the right to vote?

• No binding code: the 1997 Restatement has no sanction, so each judge draws the line.
• Pending-or-likely test is wide: almost any public issue may one day reach the court.
• Recusal is left to the judge; there is no written rule on prior public remarks.

What should be done next on judicial propriety and the right to vote?

• Speak on principles, not on live cases, as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct advise.
• Step away from a case if one has spoken publicly on its precise issue.
• The Supreme Court could issue written guidance on extrajudicial speech and recusal.

What can Prelims ask on judicial propriety and the right to vote?

• Article 326: adult suffrage; Article 325: one general roll; Article 324: Election Commission.
• 61st Amendment, 1988: voting age 21 to 18.
• Right to vote: Constitutional Right (UPSC 2017 key), not a Fundamental Right.
• Restatement of Values of Judicial Life: 7 May 1997; Clause 8 on pending matters.
• Rule 21A, Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: hearing before deletion.

How to write about judicial propriety and the right to vote in Mains

Practice question (15 marks, 250 words): “Impartiality and indifference are not the same thing.” Discuss the limits of public speech by sitting judges in India with reference to the recent debate on voter deletions.

• Intro: the October 4 speech and the objection from a former CJI.
• Code: 1997 Restatement, Clause 8; Bangalore Principles.
• For speech: public education, Justice Nath’s line, ADR v. ECI already says much the same.
• Against: pending SIR cases, perception of bias, recusal risk.
• Way out: principles not cases; recusal norms; written guidance.