Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court has stressed that a voter's name cannot be removed from the electoral roll without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, observing that any process resulting in large-scale disenfranchisement could run contrary to the constitutional framework, NDTV reported.
Speaking at the 19th NALSAR-Justice BR Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Sunday, Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution does not recognise different classes of citizens based on whether they have voting rights.
"The Indian Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens: citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights," Justice Bhuyan said.
He said that a large-scale denial of voting rights would raise serious constitutional concerns and could not be legitimised merely by invoking political considerations. "No amount of whataboutery can justify it... It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution," he said.
ALSO READ: SC To Take Suo Moto Note Of Proposed Relocation Of 135-Year-Old Central Secretariat Library
Justice Bhuyan observed that any such action could run afoul of the constitutional guarantees under Article 14, which safeguards equality before the law, and Article 326, which mandates elections on the basis of universal adult suffrage.
"I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the constitutional order which we have adopted under the Constitution of India," he said.
The judge did not name any particular authority or electoral exercise in his address. His remarks, however, come months after the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
ALSO READ : SC Order On Unpaid Traffic Challans: Impact On RC, PUC, Licence — What We Know
The Supreme Court had ruled that the revision exercise fell within the Election Commission's constitutional mandate and that the measures adopted by it were neither excessive nor disproportionate.
It also said that where the poll panel was not satisfied that a person met the eligibility conditions for inclusion, the matter could be referred to the competent authority for adjudication.
Justice Bhuyan stressed that, barring cases such as a deceased voter, a person's name on the electoral roll should not be removed without notice and a hearing.
"From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or right to be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body," he said.
He also linked the right to vote with India's freedom struggle, describing universal adult franchise as an expression of the freedom secured after decades of struggle and sacrifice.
"Article 326 cannot be tinkered with at all. No authority can do it; no court can condone it. No one is above the Constitution," Justice Bhuyan said.
Political parties opposed to the SIR have criticised the exercise and raised concerns over the deletion of names from electoral rolls.
The controversy has also fuelled a wider debate over the independence and functioning of the Election Commission.
Justice Bhuyan noted that while the Supreme Court has held that voting is not a fundamental right, it has recognised voting as a constitutional right. In his view, the right to vote is closely linked to the Constitution's Basic Structure.
He described universal adult franchise as the Constitution-makers' "act of faith" in ordinary citizens, saying the vote of a billionaire and that of a rickshaw puller carries equal value in a democracy.
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.