# Indian judicial warnings on voter disenfranchisement

> Live situation record from CLSTR: https://clstr.news/situations/indian-judicial-warnings-on-voter-disenfranchisement
> Updated: 2026-10-05T02:10:38.000Z. Sources: 19. Developments: 2.

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has issued warnings regarding the potential mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens, describing such processes as ‘intrinsically arbitrary’ and a violation of the Constitution’s basic structure. Speaking at NALSAR University, Bhuyan emphasized that the Constitution does not recognize two classes of citizens—those with voting rights and those without—and noted that voter names must not be removed from electoral rolls without proper notice and hearings, except in cases of death.

These judicial remarks have intensified political pressure on Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, with the Congress party demanding his resignation. While the Supreme Court declined an interim plea to suspend the CEC, citing concerns over the practical implications for election conduct, the Court has issued notices to the government and the Election Commission of India. The Court directed the Commission to ensure that decisions are made through a collective, unanimous, or majority framework rather than unilaterally.

In related commentary, former Justice Rohinton Nariman expressed concern that the right to vote is in ‘great peril,’ citing instances where 90 lakh citizens were disenfranchised. Nariman also criticized legislative changes that increased executive dominance over the appointment of Election Commissioners, noting that 93 percent of decided appeals in such cases favored the excluded citizens.

## Claims

- Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that mass disenfranchisement is intrinsically arbitrary and negates the constitutional order. (corroborated by 12 sources)
- Mass disenfranchisement violates Articles 326 and 14 of the Indian Constitution. (corroborated by 8 sources)
- Voter names cannot be removed from electoral rolls without notice and a hearing, except in the case of deceased voters. (corroborated by 3 sources)
- Former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman stated that the right to vote in India is in great peril. (single source)
- Justice Nariman reported that 90 lakh citizens were disenfranchised. (single source)
- Of 1 lakh decided appeals regarding disenfranchisement, 93 percent were decided in favor of the excluded citizens. (single source)
- Legislative changes in 2023 replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the Election Commissioner selection panel. (single source)

## Timeline

### 2026-10-05: Justice Ajul Bhuiyan declares mass deprivation of voting rights unconstitutional

Supreme Court Justice Ajul Bhuiyan ruled that mass deprivation of voting rights is unconstitutional, fueling political protests and calls for the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation in India.

2 sources. https://clstr.news/cluster/justice-ajul-bhuiyan-declares-mass-deprivation-of-voting-rights-unconstitutional

### 2026-10-04: India Supreme Court Justice warns mass disenfranchisement is unconstitutional

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has called mass voter disenfranchisement ‘intrinsically arbitrary,’ fueling political demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

17 sources. https://clstr.news/cluster/indian-judicial-figures-warn-of-mass-voter-disenfranchisement

---
Cite as: Indian judicial warnings on voter disenfranchisement. CLSTR, https://clstr.news/situations/indian-judicial-warnings-on-voter-disenfranchisement