‘No amount of whataboutery can justify mass disenfranchisement’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan amid SIR row

What is the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an Election Commission exercise to examine and update electoral rolls. Its purpose is to verify voter records and produce an accurate list of eligible electors. That matters because the roll determines who can vote.

The article describes notices being issued for “no mapping” or “logical discrepancies.” It also reports deletions from draft rolls and later appeals against exclusion or inclusion. The prescribed process is supposed to protect voters before any name is removed.

The exercise is now under legal and political scrutiny. In Delhi, petitioners challenged large-scale exclusions and questioned whether notices were generated mechanically. The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that no voter would be deleted without following the prescribed process. The controversy shows that roll revision must balance accurate records with accessible, timely protection of voting rights.

What did Justice Ujjal Bhuyan say is constitutionally wrong with mass disenfranchisement?

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said mass disenfranchisement is “intrinsically arbitrary.” In his view, removing millions from the electorate can make them second-class citizens in their own country. It attacks the constitutional order because voting is central to citizenship, equality, and democratic government.

He rejected the idea that political arguments or “whataboutery” could justify such exclusion. He also said the Constitution does not envisage two classes of citizens: people who can vote and people who cannot. Citizenship and the franchise are theoretically intertwined, he explained.

The warning matters because administrative action can undermine adult suffrage even without changing the Constitution’s text. The SIR controversy includes large exclusions, disputed notices, and delayed appeals. Justice Bhuyan’s reasoning places a high constitutional value on preventing eligible citizens from losing their voice through arbitrary or poorly reviewed procedures.

How many voters or appeals were affected in the cases described in Delhi and West Bengal?

The article describes a very large impact across Delhi and West Bengal. In Delhi, petitioners told the Supreme Court that 47.56 lakh names were excluded from the draft electoral roll. Another 33.13 lakh electors were identified for notices because of “no mapping” or “logical discrepancies.”

West Bengal presents a separate appeals crisis. The Election Commission said 22.21 lakh of the 27.16 lakh electors deleted through adjudication had appealed. Another 16.10 lakh appeals challenged the inclusion of voters. Together, these appeals totalled 38.31 lakh.

More than 37 lakh appeals remained pending in West Bengal. The Commission proposed raising the number of appellate tribunals from 19 to 42. The Supreme Court was scheduled to consider the matter on October 5. These figures show that the issue concerns both initial exclusion and the practical ability to obtain timely review.

What can happen when eligible voters are deleted from electoral rolls or cannot obtain timely relief?

When eligible voters are deleted, they may be denied the ability to vote in an election. Justice Bhuyan warned that this can make citizens second-class members of their own country. It also weakens the democratic promise that every adult citizen has an equal voice.

The article shows how the problem can deepen when relief is delayed. In West Bengal, 22.21 lakh deleted electors appealed, while more than 37 lakh appeals remained pending overall. A voter may therefore face not only exclusion, but also a long wait to prove eligibility and restore the name.

This is why the process must include clear reasons, fair notice, and timely appeals. The Supreme Court questioned the basis for “logical discrepancy” notices and whether they were generated mechanically. The Commission promised to follow prescribed safeguards. Future protection depends on effective review before elections, not merely on a formal right to appeal.

What do Articles 325 and 326 of the Indian Constitution provide about electoral rolls and adult suffrage?

Article 325 provides for a single general electoral roll for every constituency. It bars exclusion from that roll, or claims to a special roll, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or sex. The provision supports a common electoral system rather than separate voter lists based on identity.

Article 326 provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies are conducted on the basis of adult suffrage. It also recognises that constitutionally permitted disqualifications may apply. Together, the articles establish broad participation while setting constitutional boundaries.

These provisions matter in the SIR controversy because electoral administration must respect the franchise. Justice Bhuyan described voting as integral to citizenship and the democratic order. A revision exercise may check records, but it must not arbitrarily exclude eligible citizens. The article presents Articles 325 and 326 as foundations of equal political participation.

Why did India’s Constitution adopt universal adult franchise despite widespread illiteracy, poverty, and social inequality?

India’s Constitution adopted universal adult franchise as an act of faith in ordinary citizens. The Constituent Assembly chose equal voting despite widespread illiteracy, poverty, and the enormous administrative challenge of enrolling voters. It refused to make literacy, property, wealth, or social standing conditions for political participation.

This choice reflected the freedom struggle’s democratic promise. The vote gave people divided by caste and economic status an equal role in choosing those who governed them. A billionaire and a rickshaw puller would have votes of equal value. So would a privileged priest and a manual scavenger.

Justice Bhuyan connected this decision to BR Ambedkar’s warning about political equality existing alongside social and economic inequality. Universal franchise was meant to begin correcting that contradiction. It remains important because administrative systems must preserve the equal voice promised to every adult citizen, especially during electoral-roll revisions.

How does the principle of “one person, one vote, one vote, one value” connect voting rights to political equality and democratic government?

“One person, one vote, one vote, one value” means that every citizen’s vote should carry equal weight. Political influence cannot properly depend on wealth, caste, literacy, occupation, or social rank. Justice Bhuyan described this principle as a facet of equality and the essence of the Constitution.

The article illustrates the idea through sharp contrasts. A billionaire and a rickshaw puller have votes of equal value. The same is true of a socially privileged temple priest and a person forced to work as a manual scavenger. Their social positions differ, but their formal political voice does not.

This equality makes democratic government more than majority rule. It gives every citizen an equal role in choosing representatives and holding power accountable. Mass exclusion breaks that promise by reducing some citizens’ political voice to zero. That is why accurate rolls, fair verification, and timely appeals are essential to constitutional democracy.

Key Facts:

📌 SIR means Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

📌 The exercise involves checking voter records and issuing verification notices.

📌 The Supreme Court is examining challenges to the process.

📌 Justice Bhuyan called mass disenfranchisement “intrinsically arbitrary.”

📌 He said the Constitution does not create two voting-based citizen classes.

📌 He linked voting rights directly with citizenship and democratic order.

📌 Delhi’s draft roll excluded 47.56 lakh names.