Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan’s Remarks on Voting Rights Spark Debate on Judicial Speech

On 4 October 2026 , Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a valedictory address at a moot court competition at NALSAR University of Law. He said the right to vote is a constitutional part of India’s basic structure and warned that any mass deletion of voters would be arbitrary and breach Article 326 . His comments have reignited a long‑standing debate on how far a sitting judge may speak on matters that may later come before the court. Key Developments Justice Bhuyan cited Representation of the People Act, 1950 and stressed the need for notice and a hearing before any voter is removed, except in cases of death. Former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and former Delhi High Court judges warned that a sitting judge commenting on a sub‑judice issue may breach judicial propriety. On 5 October 2026 , the Supreme Court was hearing petitions challenging the West Bengal SIR , with over 22 lakh voters seeking restoration. International standards such as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct allow judges to teach and write on law but caution against commenting on pending matters. Important Facts The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (Clause 8) explicitly bars judges from expressing views on political matters or issues likely to arise for judicial determination. However, it carries no direct penalty and is used as a reference in judgments. In May 2026 , the Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India , reaffirmed that voting is a constitutional right but not absolute, and that procedural safeguards like notice and hearing (Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960) are mandatory before deletion. Comparatively, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Code of Conduct permits justices to speak on legal topics but not on the merits of pending cases. The British experience shows senior judges may outline arguments but must stop before the case reaches the bench. UPSC Relevance Understanding the balance between judicial independence and accountability is essential for GS 2: Polity – especially the role of the Supreme Court and its ethical guidelines. Knowledge of electoral laws like Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 326 is crucial for questions on voting rights and electoral reforms. The collegium system often features in debates on judicial appointments, a topic frequently asked in the mains. Way Forward Judges should continue to engage in legal education but must avoid statements that could be seen as pre‑empting a decision in a pending case. Clear internal guidelines, perhaps with enforceable sanctions, could help maintain public confidence while preserving the valuable contribution of judges to constitutional discourse. For aspirants, tracking such debates sharpens understanding of the delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint – a recurring theme in UPSC interviews and essays.