Denying vote while retaining citizenship is like body without soul: Congress Atul Londhe Patil attacks CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Maharashtra Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe Patil told ANI that Justice Bhuyan had linked Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act with Article 326 of the Constitution, and described the right to vote as an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure.

"Justice Bhuyan directly linked Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act with Article 326 of the Constitution, explaining that retaining someone's citizenship while stripping them of their voting rights is akin to keeping the body alive while removing the soul," said Patil.

"He has declared this matter to be an integral part of the Constitution's 'basic structure.' Given this pronouncement, Ganesh Gupta retains neither the moral nor the constitutional authority to remain in office; he ought to step down," Patil said.

The remarks came after Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that any procedure that leads to the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens and turning individuals into "second-class citizens" without voting rights is "intrinsically arbitrary."

"If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens, making them second-class citizens in their own country, in the sense of being citizens without a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it," he said.

Congress leader Harshwardhan Sapkal said Justice Bhuyan had reiterated points previously raised by two Election Commissioners.

"The judge has reiterated the very points raised earlier in a letter by two Election Commissioners; he did not introduce anything new but rather clarified the provisions of the Constitution and the law," Sapkal said.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat also welcomed Justice Bhuyan's observations and questioned why similar concerns had not been reflected in Supreme Court judgments concerning challenges to the SIR process.

"...the question arises that when a Supreme Court judge feels so clearly and strongly about it, how is it that it is not reflected in the Supreme Court judgments? The Supreme Court has shirked its responsibility to protect the right to vote...all the cases against SIR which all of us have filedwhy is the Supreme Court not making a clear direction to halt the SIR process?" Karat said.

She questioned the functioning of constitutional institutions and said, "...the Election Commission is compromised. The Government of India is compromised. But is the Supreme Court also so compromised?"

"After Justice Bhuyan's clear statement, which we welcome, the Supreme Court has to answer what it is doing to defend the heart of the Constitution, the right to vote," Karat said.

On remarks by former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Karat said they reflected the concerns of citizens questioning the Election Commission.

"It's a very good statement by Justice Nariman, and it reflects what citizens across India believe, and it also challenges the narrative of the government that everybody who is questioning the Election Commission is anti-national," she said.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Anand Dubey also backed Justice Bhuyan's views, saying there could not be different laws or procedures for deletion of names from electoral rolls.

"Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's statement is entirely appropriatethere cannot be two sets of laws, two categories of voters, or two different procedures regarding the deletion of names from the electoral roll in this country," Dubey said.

However, BJP leader Karunasagar said electoral roll revision should not automatically be equated with disenfranchisement.

"Electoral roll revision is not by itself disenfranchisement of the voters. The constitutional and electoral laws require electoral rolls to be transparent and accurate, and any ineligible, duplicate, deceased, or shifted voters cannot cast legitimate votes in the election process," he said.

He added that every genuine vote must be protected through proper notice, verification, and an opportunity to raise objections, saying the electoral process must be "transparent, lawful, and verifiable".

BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said people could express their views in a democracy but cautioned against what he termed "violent anarchy".

"People can express themselves. That is the beauty of our democracy. But everyone must understand one thing: hijacking of vibrant democracy through violent anarchy should not be allowed," Naqvi said. (ANI)