Your daily dose of news, covering the latest updates in politics, business, sports, entertainment, and more from India and around the world.
By Chetanya Sarraf
Oct 03, 2026, 12:22 PM
Ashwini Kumar Backs Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Voter Rights
Former Union Law Minister Ashwini Kumar has expressed strong support for remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the issue of mass voter deletions and disenfranchisement. Kumar described the concerns raised by the judge as a reflection of the national conscience and called the situation a “sad day for Indian democracy.”
The comments come amid an ongoing debate over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The debate, therefore, focuses on two important goals: maintaining accurate electoral rolls and ensuring authorities do not wrongly remove eligible citizens.
Justice Bhuyan recently addressed the issue while speaking at the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition in Hyderabad. He said any process resulting in the mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens would raise serious constitutional concerns.
Ashwini Kumar Supports Justice Bhuyan
Ashwini Kumar said Justice Bhuyan’s observations reflected concerns about the importance of protecting every eligible citizen’s voting rights.
According to Kumar, the electoral process must remain transparent and fair, while the sanctity of an individual vote must be protected. He also expressed concern over the scale of voter disenfranchisement being discussed in connection with electoral roll revisions.
Kumar said that democracy depends not only on conducting elections but also on ensuring that eligible citizens are able to participate in them. He argued that electoral procedures must therefore include adequate safeguards so that genuine voters are not unfairly excluded.
His remarks came shortly after Justice Bhuyan raised concerns about the consequences of large-scale disenfranchisement. The former law minister’s response has added another prominent voice to the wider discussion around voter lists, constitutional protections and electoral administration.
At the same time, the issue remains politically sensitive. Different political parties and public figures have expressed contrasting views about the SIR exercise, making it important to distinguish between confirmed facts, political allegations, and judicial observations.
What Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Said
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking at the NALSAR event in Hyderabad, said the Indian Constitution does not envisage two categories of citizens, those who have voting rights and those who do not.
He argued that authorities could consider any process that deprives millions of citizens of their voting rights intrinsically arbitrary.He also said that such a situation would strike at the heart of the constitutional order.
Justice Bhuyan linked the right to vote with Article 326 of the Constitution, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to constitutionally recognised disqualifications.
He also referred to Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. His broader argument was that electoral procedures must operate within constitutional limits and should not result in arbitrary exclusion of eligible citizens.
The judge further stressed the importance of safeguards when names are removed from electoral rolls. Reports on his remarks said he referred to the need for notice and an opportunity to be heard before an enrolled voter’s name is deleted, except in circumstances such as the removal of a deceased voter.
Justice Bhuyan made these remarks in a broader constitutional context. They should not automatically treat these remarks as a final judicial ruling on every aspect of the current SIR exercise.
Debate Over Voter Deletions
The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has sparked the controversy surrounding voter deletions. Through these revisions, the Election Commission aims to maintain accurate voter lists by identifying and addressing duplicate entries, deceased voters, and other ineligible records.
Political parties and groups have criticized the process, raising concerns that it could exclude eligible voters.
The Election Commission says that revising electoral rolls falls within its responsibilities and helps maintain accurate and reliable voter lists. Supporters of the exercise have also argued that electoral rolls need regular updating to prevent bogus or duplicate entries.
The debate, therefore, focuses on two key goals: keeping electoral rolls accurate and ensuring authorities do not wrongly remove eligible citizens.
For voters, the issue is particularly important because they need to appear on the electoral roll to participate in elections. Any error in the revision process can potentially prevent an eligible person from exercising their franchise.
This is why procedures for verification, objections, corrections and appeals are important. Clear communication and accessible remedies can help resolve disputes when authorities wrongly exclude a voter’s name.
Why the Issue Matters for Democracy
Ashwini Kumar’s comments have brought renewed attention to the wider constitutional debate surrounding voting rights. His statement that the situation represents a “sad day for Indian democracy” reflects his assessment of the concerns surrounding mass disenfranchisement.
Justice Bhuyan has similarly emphasized that authorities should not separate citizenship from voting rights through arbitrary administrative action.
The current debate also highlights the role of institutions in maintaining confidence in the electoral system. The Election Commission is responsible for preparing and revising electoral rolls, while courts can examine legal challenges involving electoral procedures and constitutional safeguards.
For citizens, the central concern remains straightforward: eligible voters should have a fair opportunity to remain on the electoral roll and participate in elections.
The discussion around SIR is likely to continue as political parties, election authorities and legal experts debate the process and its implementation. Any final assessment of specific allegations will depend on official records, legal proceedings and decisions by the competent authorities.
For now, Ashwini Kumar’s support for Justice Bhuyan’s remarks has strengthened the debate over voter rights, electoral transparency, and the constitutional need to prevent the unfair disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.
The issue also underlines the importance of clear communication between election authorities and voters. Citizens need accessible information about verification procedures, deadlines and available remedies if their names are missing from electoral rolls. Transparent processes can reduce confusion, address legitimate concerns before elections, strengthen public confidence in the electoral system, and protect every eligible voter’s fundamental democratic rights.
Source: ANI
Your trusted source for news, updates, and insights from India and around the world.
Copyright © 2020–2026 NEWSHOTS. All Rights Reserved.
