Amid the row over the SIR of electoral rolls against which petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a judge of the top court, said that any process that leads to wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens, making them citizens without voting rights, would be violative of Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution.Justice Bhuyan said detaching an Indian citizen from their right to vote would be akin to “taking out the soul from the body.”Speaking at a valedictory ceremony of Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court competition at Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, he said, “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 voting rights, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it.”He said, “It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the constitutional order, which we have adopted under the Constitution of India.”Also read | EC appointment law: The key takeaways from Supreme Court’s split verdictSpeaking on the significance of universal adult suffrage, especially in the context of India, Justice Bhuyan said, “From the persona of an Indian citizen, the right to vote or right to be included in the voters’ list cannot be detached. It will be like taking out the soul from the body.”Bhuyan said that the earliest articulation of adult franchise in India can be traced to the Constitution of India Bill, 1895, also known as the Swaraj Bill.Speaking about the debate in the Constituent Assembly on universal adult suffrage, he said, “In the draft Constitution, which was debated by the Constituent Assembly, there were two articles of relevance, though included subsequently. These were Articles 289A and 289B…Draft Article 289A became Article 325 and draft Article 289B became Article 326 of the Constitution of India…Article 326 gives meaning and content to the equality principle enshrined in Article 14.”Story continues below this adHe said, “Article 325 of the Constitution of India declares that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for election to the Lok Sabha or to the Legislature of a State; no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or claim to be included in any electoral roll for any such constituency on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.”He said, “As per Article 326 of the Constitution, election to the Lok Sabha and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. In other words, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age (prior to March 28, 1989, it was 21 years) and who is not disqualified under the Constitution of India or by any law made by the appropriate legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.”Quoting Dr B R Ambedkar, Justice Bhuyan said, “Justifying universal adult suffrage, Dr Ambedkar said since we have taken a very important decision, which practically nullifies the past, it is better that the Constitution should, in express terms, state it is the basis for insertion of Articles 289A and 289B in the draft Constitution, which are now Articles 325 and 326.”He said, “Dr Ambedkar’s closing speech warned that the right to vote and the Indian citizen’s entitlement to adult suffrage should be written into the Constitution of India, instead of being left to the whims of parliamentary legislation.”Story continues below this adJustice Bhuyan said, “Adoption of universal adult franchise reflects the determined opinion of the Constituent Assembly that years of freedom struggle and the revolt against foreign rule made the adoption of universal adult franchise a natural choice and an essential ingredient of democracy, which we have adopted as the form of governance.”Justice Bhuyan said, “Therefore, it was an act of faith for our founding fathers in the common man of India and in his pragmatism and wisdom. It was the first step taken to achieve equality in India.”He said, “One may be a billionaire, and one may be a rickshaw puller; yet both will have their votes, and the value of their votes would be equal. Likewise, a socially high-placed temple priest on the one hand and a person belonging to the lowest strata of the society compelled to work as a manual scavenger have an equal vote with equal value. This is the transformational vision of the Indian Constitution.”In his concluding remarks, he congratulated Nalsar students for “being what students, especially law students, should be”.