Guwahati: Former Supreme Court judges Abhay Oka and Gopala Gowda have defended Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s comments on the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that his remarks did not breach judicial propriety and that serving judges can express views on public issues within certain limits, The Wire reported.
Oka, who previously served as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, said judges should avoid expressing opinions on the merits of cases being heard by their own benches or other coordinate benches.
At the same time, he argued that judicial office does not remove a person’s right to engage with issues affecting society. Judges must, however, exercise restraint when discussing matters of public importance.
During a discussion with former Judge Advocate General Nilendra Kumar, founder-director of the Lex Consilium Foundation, Oka said Bhuyan had acted within his rights by discussing voting rights with law students.
He explained that judges could also examine legal questions in academic discussions, including whether a Supreme Court ruling warranted reconsideration, without necessarily reaching the same conclusion while deciding a case.
Bhuyan’s remarks came during his valedictory address at the 19th NALSAR-Justice BR Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition, held at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad. His speech addressed the SIR process and its implications for citizens’ voting rights.
Bhuyan had argued that a process depriving millions of Indian citizens of their voting rights and leaving them as second-class citizens in their own country was “intrinsically arbitrary”. He also said no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such an outcome.
After listening to the address, Oka said he understood that the moot court event dealt with the right to vote. He found no indication that Bhuyan had discussed the merits of a case awaiting a decision before the Supreme Court or a coordinate bench. Oka also said he had not found any criticism of the Supreme Court’s orders on SIR in the speech.
Oka said judges remain learners even when they address students at law colleges. In his view, discussing legal issues in that setting should not be confused with attacking court rulings or commenting on disputes that are still before the judiciary.
The former judge also recounted his own experience with the SIR exercise. LiveLaw reported that Oka was asked to submit Form 8 after an error appeared in the spelling of his surname on an enumeration form, although his submitted identity documents carried the correct spelling. He questioned why he had to go through the additional procedure.
Oka warned that a legal procedure could become unlawful if officials implemented it arbitrarily. He said citizens, including serving judges, could object when a process was carried out in this manner.
Responding to former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai’s criticism of Bhuyan’s address, Oka said retired judges were not bound by the same constraints as those still serving on the Supreme Court.
Gopala Gowda also defended Bhuyan and called for the Supreme Court to withdraw its judgment upholding SIR. He alleged that the ruling had resulted from the Election Commission of India misrepresenting facts and misleading the court.
Gowda further called for the ECI’s records to be examined to determine whether the decision on SIR had the approval of all three members of the commission: the Chief Election Commissioner and the two election commissioners.
Calling the SIR judgment illegal and unconstitutional, Gowda questioned the legality of the decision.
He said Bhuyan was entitled to speak on constitutional matters while serving as a judge. Gowda also questioned Gavai’s criticism, arguing that the former CJI had previously expressed views on public issues.
He further raised the issue of Gavai’s response to public concerns surrounding reports about the ECI’s decisions.