Current Affairs · · GS2 · Polity

Judge's remarks on voter deletions reopen debate on judicial speech

Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan said at a law school event that voters cannot be removed from rolls without notice and a hearing, except the dead. Former CJI B.R. Gavai said judicial propriety bars comment on matters pending in court. A Hindu opinion piece asks where judicial restraint should begin and end.

Event date:

REq1
  1. Note1 / 5

    WHY IN NEWS?

    • On 4 October 2026, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court gave the valedictory address at a moot court competition at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
    • He said a voter's name cannot be deleted without notice and a hearing, except for a deceased voter.
    • He said any process that disenfranchises millions of citizens would be arbitrary.
    • Former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said judicial propriety would not permit comment on a matter pending before the Court.
    • Related SIR cases are before the Supreme Court. Justice Bhuyan was reportedly not on those Benches.
  2. Note2 / 5

    THE TWO SIDES

    This card sets out documented positions. It does not adjudicate between them.

    • Case for restraint: Comments on pending issues may look like prejudgment, weaken public confidence and raise questions of recusal.
    • Case for engagement: Judges may explain constitutional principles in lectures and teaching. Impartiality does not require silence on basic rights.
    • The narrow question: Is stating settled law, such as the need for a hearing before deletion, different from commenting on a specific pending case?
  3. Note3 / 5

    KEY CONCEPTS

    1. What do Articles 325 and 326 provide?

    Article 325 bars exclusion from electoral rolls on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex alone. Article 326 provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage.

    1. What does Section 22 of the RPA, 1950 provide?

    It allows electoral registration officers to correct or delete entries. Deletion generally requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

    1. What is the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life?

    Adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, it is a code of conduct for judges. It asks them to avoid public comment on matters pending or likely to come before them.

    1. What is audi alteram partem?

    It means "hear the other side". No one should be condemned without a fair chance to respond.

  4. Note4 / 5

    HOW OTHER SYSTEMS HANDLE IT

    • United States: The Supreme Court's 2023 Code of Conduct allows lectures and writing but cautions against commenting on the merits of pending cases.
    • United Kingdom: Senior judges have, at times, outlined legal arguments in public before declining further comment on cases that might reach them.
    • Bangalore Principles (2002): They allow judges to write, teach and speak about law, while warning against comments that could affect proceedings.
  5. Note5 / 5

    WAY FORWARD

    These are the article's suggestions, not adopted policy.

    • Draw a clear line between explaining constitutional principles and commenting on disputed facts in pending cases.
    • Use neutral language that does not appear to predict outcomes.
    • Consider recusal where remarks could reasonably suggest bias.
    • Protect independence: Propriety rules should not be used to silence legitimate institutional comment.

Sources

Syllabus

PaperSubjectSub-topic
GS2PolityJudiciary, separation of powers, Election Commission, Representation of the People Act
GS4EthicsEthics in public institutions
PrelimsPolityArticles 325–326, judicial conduct codes

Topics

Constitutional BodiesFundamental RightsHigher Judiciary (SC and HC)

Practice questions

  1. Which Article of the Constitution provides that no person shall be excluded from electoral rolls on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex?

    1. Article 324
    2. Article 325
    3. Article 326
    4. Article 329
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Article 326 provides adult suffrage.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  2. The "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" was adopted by the Supreme Court in:

    1. 1985
    2. 1997
    3. 2002
    4. 2015
    Show answer

    Answer: B. The Bangalore Principles followed internationally in 2002.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  3. The principle audi alteram partem means:

    1. Let the decision stand
    2. Hear the other side
    3. No one should judge their own cause
    4. The law does not concern trifles
    Show answer

    Answer: B. It is a rule of natural justice.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

Mains practice

Answer-writing practice on this article. Attempt it first, then open the hints.

  1. GS2 · 150 words

    Should sitting judges speak publicly on constitutional issues that may come before their courts? Discuss with reference to judicial ethics and public confidence.

    Show hints
    1. Sub judice
    2. Restatement of 1997, Bangalore Principles
    3. legal education
    4. prejudgment, recusal
    5. comparative practice.