Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Judge’s Remarks on Voter Deletions Spark Judicial and Political Backlash
By Drooid · · How we work
The Controversial Remarks
He invoked Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the right to vote cannot be detached from citizenship.
Background & Context
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is a periodic exercise by the Election Commission of India (ECI) intended to delete ineligible entries and add eligible voters. Petitions challenging SIR in several states, notably West Bengal, are pending before the Supreme Court. The Court’s 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment highlighted the absence of a parliamentary law under Article 324 for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner, prompting a temporary collegium-style selection mechanism.
Official Statements & Responses
Former Chief Justice B R Gavai said “judicial propriety would not permit” a sitting judge to comment on a matter “sub judice.” Former Uttarakhand High Court judge Lokpal Singh defended the deletions as a normal, necessary process and called for a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.
Data & Statistics
- Approximately 90 lakh voters are alleged to have been disenfranchised in West Bengal.
- Around 22 lakh appeals have been filed; one lakh have been decided, with 93 percent favouring the voters.
- Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act 1950 permits deletion only after a reasonable hearing, a safeguard highlighted by Justice Bhuyan.
Why It Matters / Impact
The dispute underscores tensions between electoral administration, judicial oversight, and constitutional guarantees of equal voting rights. A ruling upholding the current SIR methodology could set a precedent for future roll revisions; a decision that it violates Articles 326 and 14 could compel legislative reform of both the SIR procedure and the poll-panel appointment mechanism.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court,” — Election Commission. Gavai
- “He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” — Justice Dhingra
- “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.” — Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While Justice Nariman cited 90 lakh disenfranchised voters, no official figure from the Election Commission has been published, leaving the exact scale unverified. The appeal numbers and success rate are drawn from statements without independent corroboration.
What’s Next
A larger bench of five Supreme Court judges will consider the constitutionality of the SIR process and the recent poll-panel appointment law. Their decision will determine whether the current revision mechanism can continue or must be overhauled to align with constitutional guarantees of universal adult suffrage.