When Justice Ujjal Bhuyan holds court, outside the Supreme Court

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has been speaking publicly beyond courtroom judgments. In recent months, he has addressed legal and academic gatherings, especially weekend memorial lectures, on issues touching democracy, courts and constitutional values. His comments stand out because sitting judges usually avoid public discussion of contentious matters.

For example, at NALSAR he criticised the process of disenfranchising citizens while the Supreme Court was hearing challenges to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision. At UST Meghalaya, he urged education to encourage questioning and warned that societies fearing questions can become vulnerable to authoritarianism. He also highlighted the Supreme Court’s limited representation of women.

These interventions attracted attention because judicial guidelines caution judges against public comments on political matters or pending cases. Justice Bhuyan is expected to retire in August 2029 and is not in line to become Chief Justice of India. His speeches therefore raise questions about judicial candour, restraint and institutional independence.

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life is a set of principles adopted by the Supreme Court in May 1997 to guide judicial conduct. It explains how judges should behave both inside and outside court. Its purpose is to protect impartiality and public confidence in judicial decisions.

Clause 8 says a judge should not express views in public on political matters, or on matters pending or likely to come before a court. Clause 9 says judgments should speak for themselves. It also says judges should not give interviews to the media. These rules seek to prevent public statements from appearing to prejudge disputes.

The guidelines matter because several of Justice Bhuyan’s speeches were discussed alongside cases being heard in court. Former Chief Justice B R Gavai said a sitting Supreme Court judge should not comment on an issue pending adjudication before the same court. This creates a tension between openness and restraint.

Women make up only three of the Supreme Court’s 35 judges, according to Justice Bhuyan. He described the Court as male-dominated and said its composition does not reflect the real proportion of women lawyers or women in the country. Representation matters because the judiciary should visibly include the communities it serves.

At the University of Science and Technology Meghalaya’s convocation, Justice Bhuyan proposed that women judges should be invited to become part of the Collegium. The Collegium is central to recommendations on judicial appointments and transfers. Greater participation by women judges could bring different experiences into those institutional decisions.

The figures show a sharp imbalance at the apex court. Justice Bhuyan’s comments connect representation with confidence in the judiciary and with fairer institutional decision-making. The article does not state that a specific reform has followed, but his proposal places women’s participation in the Collegium alongside the wider debate about judicial transparency and appointments.

The comments were sensitive because they concerned an issue directly before the Supreme Court. The Court was hearing petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision, amid allegations that eligible voters were deliberately excluded. Justice Bhuyan called disenfranchising millions intrinsically arbitrary and said it could make citizens second-class citizens without voting rights.

He made the remarks on October 4 at a NALSAR moot court ceremony. The revision was continuing in West Bengal a year after it began. Some voters’ cases were still pending before judicial tribunals created to examine their claims. That placed his public comments close to an active legal dispute and an ongoing electoral process.

The reaction focused on judicial restraint rather than only the substance of voting rights. Former CJI B R Gavai said a sitting Supreme Court judge should not comment on an issue pending before the same court. The episode highlights the boundary between defending constitutional values and avoiding prejudgment.

The Supreme Court Collegium is a group of senior Supreme Court judges that recommends candidates for appointments to higher courts and decisions about judicial transfers. It is important because these recommendations shape the membership, independence and functioning of India’s higher judiciary. The article focuses especially on the Collegium’s relationship with the Central government.

Justice Bhuyan said a transfer recorded as being made at the government’s request revealed a striking intrusion. He referred to the Collegium changing its recommendation concerning Justice Atul Sreedharan. Instead of transferring him from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh, it shifted him to Allahabad after the government sought reconsideration.

Justice Bhuyan later criticised the Collegium for not giving reasons for its decisions, calling that a step back from transparency. Without reasons, the public cannot scrutinise choices, and concerns may arise about whether candidates share constitutional values. The article presents the Collegium as powerful but contested, with independence and accountability both at stake.

When eligible citizens are removed from electoral rolls, they may be unable to cast their votes. That directly affects their participation as citizens and can make them, in Justice Bhuyan’s words, citizens without voting rights. He described the process of disenfranchising millions as intrinsically arbitrary.

The article links this concern to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision. It reports allegations of deliberate exclusion of eligible voters. In West Bengal, the exercise continued a year after it began, while some voters’ cases remained pending before judicial tribunals established to consider their claims. The mechanism is therefore administrative exclusion followed by a potentially delayed legal challenge.

The immediate consequence is loss of voting access and the status of a second-class citizen in the sense Justice Bhuyan described. The article does not state the broader electoral outcome of the exclusions. It does show that unresolved cases and delayed remedies can intensify concerns about fairness, equal citizenship and the legitimacy of the process.

Constitutional democracies need independent courts so judges can apply constitutional principles without pressure from governments or political forces. Independence supports fair decisions, protects rights and allows courts to scrutinise official action. Without it, judicial decisions may appear controlled by those in power.

Limits on public comments serve a different but connected purpose. If a judge publicly takes a position on a political question or pending case, people may suspect that the eventual judgment was predetermined. The Supreme Court’s 1997 guidelines therefore say judges should not publicly discuss political matters or cases pending, or likely to come, before courts. Judgments should speak for themselves.

The article shows the tension through Justice Bhuyan’s speeches on voting rights, government influence and appointments. His remarks may draw attention to constitutional concerns, but they also invite questions about restraint. A credible judiciary needs both freedom from outside interference and discipline in public communication.