Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan's comments on voter deletions have raised questions about judicial propriety while related electoral roll litigation is pending before the Court.

BulletsIn

• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan spoke at a moot court competition at NALSAR University of Law on October 4, 2026.
• He said the right to vote is constitutional and integral to the basic structure of the Constitution.
• He argued that a process disenfranchising millions would be arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 326.
• He added that voters should receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before their names are deleted, except in cases of death.
• His remarks came while litigation on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal was pending before the Supreme Court.
• Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and other retired judges questioned whether commenting on an ongoing controversy was consistent with judicial propriety.
• The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court's Full Court on May 7, 1997, guides judicial conduct.
• Its Clause 8 says judges should not enter public debate on political matters or matters pending, or likely to arise, for judicial determination.
• The Restatement prescribes no separate sanction but has been referred to in judicial decisions as an ethical framework.
• Article 14 guarantees equality before law, while Article 326 provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage.
• Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, sets notice, inquiry and hearing requirements before deletion of names in applicable circumstances.
• On May 27, 2026, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court upheld the Bihar SIR.