Former CJI Gavai opposes Justice Bhuyan’s SIR remarks:Says comments on pending SC case violate judicial propriety

Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and two retired Delhi High Court judges have criticised remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying judges should avoid public comments on matters pending before the court. Justice Bhuyan, speaking on Sunday at the closing ceremony of the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sahni Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, had said that any process that deprives millions of Indians of their voting rights is fundamentally arbitrary and amounts to rejecting the constitutional order. Responding to the remarks, Justice Gavai said on Monday that judicial propriety does not permit a sitting Supreme Court judge to comment publicly on a matter that is being heard by the same court. Speaking to PTI, Gavai said, “Judicial propriety does not permit them to comment on a matter that is pending before the court.” He added that a sitting judge should avoid making statements on issues under consideration before the Supreme Court. What Justice Bhuyan said Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not create two categories of citizens and that there cannot be one class with voting rights and another without them. He also said such a process could not be justified through “whataboutery”. Petitions challenging the SIR process are currently pending before the Supreme Court. The court is also yet to hear challenges related to the law governing the appointment of election commissioners, which excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for the Chief Election Commissioner. Retired judges question remarks Retired Delhi High Court judges S.N. Dhingra and R.S. Sodhi also questioned Justice Bhuyan’s observations. Justice Dhingra said the remarks went “far beyond” what a sitting Supreme Court judge should say publicly about a matter under judicial consideration. He said such comments should not be made at public events and added that judges should carefully consider the implications before speaking on pending cases. Referring to allegations that decisions related to the SIR process were taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of other election commissioners, Dhingra said election commissioners were capable of expressing their own views if there were disagreements. Debate over voting rights and legal eligibility Justice Sodhi questioned the description of the SIR process as “disenfranchisement”, arguing that the right to vote is determined by law. He said a person has voting rights if they fulfil the legal requirements and that names wrongly included in electoral rolls can be removed through due process. Sodhi also said eligible voters could seek re-enrolment if their names were omitted. He questioned references to citizens becoming “second-class” in their own country, describing such comments as harsh and arguing that debates on electoral rights should be based on legal analysis and due procedure. NALSAR student protests also draw attention Justice Bhuyan’s remarks came amid recent controversy at Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law, where some students had written to the vice-chancellor, registrar and faculty members opposing any proposal to invite CJI Suryakant as chief guest at the university’s convocation ceremony. Justice Bhuyan, who has served as NALSAR’s chancellor, praised the students during his address. “You have shown the country and the world what a university student, especially a law student, should be like. You are talented, fearless and brave,” he told them.