Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting Judge of the Indian Supreme Court, while speaking at a moot court competition valedictory function at NALSAR, Hyderabad last Sunday, 4th October 2026 spoke strongly against the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian voters by the Election Commission of India ( ECI ).
For advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at [email protected].
He also spoke against the SIR ( special intensive revision ) by the ECI
Many retired judges, including a retired Chief Justice of India, have objected to Justice Bhuyan’s speech, on the ground that the issues he has spoken about are sub judice in the Supreme Court.
Is this criticism of Justice Bhuyan by the retired judges justified ?
I submit it is not.
It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Indian Supreme Court that while comments in a matter which may prejudice the court proceedings, or scandalize the court, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice, may amount to contempt of court, comments on matters of public importance are not forbidden even if the matter is sub judice.
Thus, in Wikimedia Foundation Inc vs ANI Media Pvt Ltd, 2025, the Indian Supreme Court observed ( vide para 30 of its judgment ) :
” Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court ”.In the same decision the Court also observed :”
Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. Infact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism ”.
The same view was taken by several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus, in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2012, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that under the sub judice rule, comments on a pending case are forbidden if there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the court proceedings, or to the administration of justice. At the same time, the bench observed that courts, as public institutions, must always remain open to public debate and criticism.
Surely the allegation that millions of voters in India have been illegally disenfranchised by the Election Commission of India, and the allegation that the SIR ( special intensive revision ) ordered by the Election Commission was illegal, are matters of public importance, and no prejudice or risk is caused by comments on the matter. Hence they can be freely commented upon by the public, even if they are sub judice. Of course Justice Bhuyan, being a sitting judge of the Supreme Court should not sit on a bench hearing the matter, but otherwise he has a right to comment on it.
I am therefore surprised that retired judges, including Justice Gavai, a former CJI, do not know the law on this point.
Attachments area
