CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS
6/6 basement, Jangpura B, Delhi – 110014
Executive Committee: Prashant Bhushan & Alok Prasanna Kumar (Convenors), Cheryl D’souza (Secretary), Nikhil Dey, Venkatesh Sundaram, Indu Prakash Singh, Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri, Annie Raja, Beena Pallical, Devvrat, Indira Unninayar, Vijayan MJ, Vipul Mudgal, Koninika Ray, Meera Sanghamitra, Apar Gupta
9th October 2026
CJAR commends Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan for his commitment towards judicial accountability and democratic rights
CJAR unequivocally commends and supports the fundamental, forthright and important points made by Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the 4 October of 2026 at the NALSAR University of Law. Justice Bhuyan spoke out strongly against the large-scale disenfranchisement of millions of citizens from the electoral rolls through the arbitrarily designed and capriciously executed Special Intensive Revision process which he described as being “intrinsically arbitrary” and “a negation of the constitutional order”. The SIR has, as Justice Bhuyan rightly points out, affected the democratic rights of the poor and vulnerable the most, reducing them to “second class citizens” by denying them the right to vote.
CJAR welcomes Justice Bhuyan’s strong public defence of the fundamental right to equality and constitutional right to vote against the assault it has faced in the name of the SIR. His comments, made to young lawyers and the public alike, reinforces faith in the judiciary’s ability to uphold the rule of law and constitutional rights.
CJAR also wishes to re-iterate that Justice Bhuyan’s statement, far from breaching any norms of judicial propriety, reflect a judge’s solemn oath to uphold and defend the constitution. It is well settled law that the “sub judice rule” does not apply to important matters of public interest. Unless they are themselves dealing with the particular case, a judge is not prevented from commenting on a matter in public interest. Since Justice Bhuyan has not been on any bench dealing with the SIR case, his speech is in no way improper. Judicial office does not extinguish a judge’s voice. Barring judges from speaking on any subject that is pending in courts would silence them on every important public issue of consequence. We at CJAR cannot agree with certain retired judges who have wrongly characterized Justice Bhuyan’s observations as judicial impropriety.
CJAR would wish to remind the public that it is actual judicial impropriety when a judge decides their own case (as we saw with CJI Ranjan Gogoi in the sexual harassment case or CJI Dipak Misra with the medical college case) or a judge hears a case without disclosing their conflict of interest (such as Justice SC Sharma in the CEC Act case).
History shows us that when judges remain entirely silent during the gradual erosion of democratic norms, they become complicit in that erosion. In recent times, citizens have grown disheartened by the repeated failure of the courts to protect their fundamental rights. CJAR commends Justice Bhuyan for speaking out to protect democracy and constitutional values, especially at a time when judicial abdication continues to erode public trust in the institution.
