On 5th October 2026, the Supreme Court refused to pass an ex parte order of suspension against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar during the hearing of a petition that sought the suspension of the CEC. Despite the petitioner, Advocate Vikas Singh, threatening that if an interim order is not passed, “the country will burn”, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana refused to issue such an order without hearing from the CEC and other respondents. Timing suggests that, before the petitioner, an apparent bid to influence the Supreme Court’s decision on CEC Gyanesh Kumar and SIR was made by former apex court judge Rohinton Nariman and sitting judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at non-judicial forums.
‘No court can condone it’: SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan passes his own verdict on SIR, declares it ‘intrinsically arbitrary’
On 4th October, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the valedictory address at the 19th NALSAR-Justice B.R. Sawhne Memorial Moot Court Competition in Hyderabad.
During his address, Justice Bhuyan said that any process that ‘disenfranchises’ “millions of Indian citizens, making them ‘second-class’ citizens in their own country” by denying them the vote is “intrinsically arbitrary.”
Bhuyan invoked Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality, and Article 326, which provides for universal adult suffrage.
Justice Bhuyan said, “No amount of whataboutery can justify it. 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.”
The Supreme Court judge went as far as to claim that “no authority can do it; no court can condone it”.
Justice Bhuyan insinuated that other than the case of dead voters, names from electoral rolls should not be struck down and that such deletions would amount to arbitrary disenfranchisement.
However, Article 326 of the Indian Constitution provides for adult suffrage subject to disqualifications under law. Similarly, the Representation of the People Act and Election Commission rules have long authorised revision, including deletion after notice in defined cases.
Interestingly, Justice Bhuyan’s apparent bias against CJI Surya Kant reflects in the fact that, in the same speech, he said about SIR that ‘no court can condone it’, knowing that the Supreme Court bench is set to hear several petitions linked to SIR and CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and he also lauded NALSAR University students as “brilliant, bold, and brave” for opposing the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university’s convocation a few weeks back.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who is also the son of a lifetime Communist leader Suchendra Nath Bhuyan, became an advocate in 1991 and has seen at least five SIRs taking place during his legal career. These SIR exercises saw large-scale voter deletions. It is amusing that despite previous SIRs weeding out dead, duplicate, and illegal voters in large numbers, somehow this is the only time Justice Bhuyan has said that ‘taking away voting rights of millions of citizens is unjustifiable, and no court can condone it’.
This ‘no court can condone it’ is not a vague or trivial statement; rather, these remarks, along with their timing, hold immense significance. If the Supreme Court goes on to decide in favour of the SIR and finds that CEC Gyanesh did not abuse his powers in any form, the morality and integrity of the Supreme Court bench hearing SIR-related matters will be questioned.
It was seen how CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghc were vehemently criticised for not stopping the SIR process in West Bengal and Bihar as per the whims of the anti-BJP political parties and extended leftist coterie. In fact, the SIR rulings will become the proof of either the ‘biasedness’ or ‘unbiasedness’ of the current CJI and the Supreme Court bench hearing relevant petitions. If the court decides in favour of the SIR and CEC Gyanesh Kumar post examination of all presented facts and arguments, the bench itself will be declared ‘compromised’ and claims will be made that the judges were securing their post-retirement future.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the judges that made sure the illegal SIR process goes through without any trouble in Bengal and Bihar, must quietly sit this one out. Even if they choose to do something, they can continue doing it. No one cares. The Supreme Court has been complicit in ensuring that Gen Z’s voting rights are stolen and state elections too. By ensuring that important petitions are not heard and decided in time, like the Maharashtra government toppling, parties being broken up, Delhi constitutional crisis case, the BJP had the last laugh. It’s a big blot on our judiciary. And so, this Supreme Court Bench may do whatever they want to but it will hold absolutely ZERO CREDIBILITY in people’s eyes. The accountability will be decided by the people of India, the young generation. The Court can do whatever it wants to do tomorrow or whenever. @Cockroachisback
— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) October 4, 2026
Justice Bhuyan is known for his controversial political commentaries that many opine are in violation of judicial discipline since he is a sitting Supreme Court judge.
In July 2025, Bhuyan delivered a speech at the 4th Memorial Lecture of Justice G.P. Singh at the National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal, wherein he raised ‘concerns’ about civil liberties, the supposed criminalisation of protests, and the functioning of the judiciary.
“The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms of the citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised”, he said.
The timing of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks was impeccable. The speech came on 25th July, five days after the violent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests and the day Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan was forced to resign.
In March 2026, he criticised the arrest and three months’ jail for some Muslim youths over hosting an Iftar party on a boat in the sacred Ganga River, eating chicken biryani and throwing chewed bones into the waters.
From criticising the UP government’s ‘bulldozer justice’ to deprecating judges taking up political roles post-retirement, Bhuyan has been quite blatant about his ideological biases. It, however, is interesting that Justice Bhuyan has turned on his politically aligned ‘activist’ mode even before retirement.
Rohinton Nariman, known for his anti-Hindu and anti-BJP biases, peddles an alarmist and apocryphal narrative on SIR
Days before Justice Bhuyan, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman, notorious for his anti-Hindu and anti-BJP moorings, claimed that the right to vote, “the heart of our Constitution, the heart of our democracy,” is “at great peril”.
Casting aspersions on the integrity of the Election Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the SIR, Nariman said, ” You cannot have an election commission which functions or malfunctions like this.”
The retired Supreme Court judge even claimed that 90 lakh voters were “disenfranchised” during the SIR exercise in West Bengal.
Rohinton Nariman also called the current law, placing the Election Commissioner appointments largely in the hands of the Central government of the day, a “red flag”. He further urged the Supreme Court to decide the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act quickly.
It is interesting that Nariman never raised alarms over the process of appointing Election Commissioners, including the CEC, when ECs or CECs were appointed at least 31 times unilaterally by the Central governments, most led by the Congress party, before the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgement.
More than his judgments, ex-judge Rohinton Nariman is known for his anti-Hindu and politically charged remarks. In September 2025, Nariman delivered a speech at an event in Keralam, wherein he needlessly referenced bovine animals that are considered sacred by Hindus, while criticising former CJI Chandrachud for turning to faith during the momentous Ram Mandir verdict.
“Whether with divine or bovine intervention or any other kind of intervention, if a judge delivers a judgment, he is violating his oath to the Constitution. You (judges) have to live only by your oath to the Constitution and the laws. And when you live by your oath to the Constitution and the laws, you certainly bring in your own morality. That’s about as far as it goes,” Justice Nariman said.
While addressing an Ahmadi Foundation event in December 2024, Nariman criticized the 5-judge bench that delivered the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict in 2019 and said that the verdict was nothing but a ‘mockery of justice’ that violated the basic principle of secularism. He even mocked Hindus as “hydra heads” for exercising their constitutional right to seek legal remedies regarding the illegal encroachment and/or Islamic repurposing of their ancient temples by Muslims.
Rohinton Nariman advocated stringent implementation of the controversial Places of Worship Act, so that no more lawsuits seeking reclamation of their temples could be filed. Nariman’s remarks suggested that to uphold ‘secularism’ Hindus should have abandoned their claim and remained silent.
BJP-hating ex-SC judge turned ‘activist’ Madan Lokur now eyeing to run parallel judiciary with ‘independent commission’ on SIR
Beyond manipulative rhetoric, some former Supreme Court judges with their ideological biases are turning into judge, jury, and executioner over the SIR.
OpIndia reportedhow ahead of the Supreme Court heard the plea seeking suspension order against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, an ‘independent commission’ was announced on 2nd October, to inquire into the validity and impact of the SIR. The so-called ‘commission’ has been formed by a newly formed private lawyers’ body called the Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) and comprises retired judges.
The five-member panel will be headed by Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur and will comprise former judges Justice AK Patnaik (former judge, Supreme Court), Justice Badar Darrez Ahmad (former Chief Justice, J&K HC), Justice Rekha Sharma (former judge, Delhi High Court) and Justice Anjana Prakash (former judge, Patna High Court). The commission will be assisted by the likes of senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, CU Singh, PC Sen, Raju Ramachandran, Rebecca M. John, Warisha Farasat, and Vrinda Grover.
Notably, Justice Lokur is known for his strong ideological biases against the BJP. Justice Lokur had criticised the abrogation of Article 370 by the Modi government, which was upheld by the Supreme Court itself.
Lokur also voiced his objections to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which empowers the government to effectively deal with anti-national activities.
He was part of the infamous rebel group of four judges who held an unprecedented press conference in 2018, with allegations, including the government’s lack of response to the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing the appointment of judges. Justice Lokur was also on the Constitutional Bench that, in 2015, struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC), introduced by the Modi government to replace the controversial Collegium system for the appointment of judges.
Given his antagonistic stance against the Modi government, Lokur has had warm and cordial relations with Pakistani judges. In January 2019, the former apex court judge attended the swearing-in ceremony of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Asif Saeed Khosa, who is also said to be a close friend of his. Before this, he had also taken part in the swearing-in ceremony of former Pakistan Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, when he took the oath as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Lokur is also a senior member of a US State Department-funded NGO, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), which issued a statement against the detention of illegal immigrants under the NRC.
From delivering statements in support of AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal and Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, to casting aspersions on the acquittal of former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh by a Delhi Court in a sexual harassment case, Lokur has made his been vocal about his ideological-political biases. Perhaps his induction in a farcical leftist-concocted ‘inquiry commission’ on SIR is a reward for his anti-BJP shenanigans.
From former CEC, IAS officer, political parties to now Supreme Court judges: Are forces opposed to the BJP giving ammo to the Opposition and influencing the judiciary against CEC Gyanesh Kumar?
Over the last few years, the Congress party and the extended I.N.D.I. Alliance levelled EVM hacking, VVPAT tampering, voter name deletions, and ‘vote chori’ to sow distrust in the minds of common people against the Election Commission. They attempted to establish a mendacious narrative that the Election Commission and the BJP are in cahoots to rig Lok Sabha and various state elections.
When nothing worked, the Opposition, and its supportive media and activist ecosystem began targeting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). They resorted to fearmongering and labelled SIR as a backdoor NRC. Although SIR stirred things a bit, the Opposition began attacking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, since calling the entire Election Commission ‘compromised’ was backfiring, especially when Opposition parties were gladly accepting the mandates in states where they won. Portraying the person at the top as corrupt and compromised is easier and more convincing; thus, the Opposition, joined by its unofficial B-Team Cockroach Janta Party and leftist media cabal, started making a villain out of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Long ‘investigative’ articles were published painting CEC Kumar as an authoritarian, twisting facts to allege conspiracy while the anti-BJP foot soldiers hit the streets with ‘Gyanesh Kumar Isteefa Do’ placards. Simultaneously, petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court seeking suspension of CEC Kumar and invalidation of the SIR.
Meanwhile, former Keralam Chief Secretary Jiji Thomson, who is known for being close to the Congress party, claimed in late September that back in 2016, now CEC Gyanesh Kumar had asked him to contest the 2019 elections on a BJP ticket, although he did not offer any proof to back his claim. Thomson’s remarks were widely amplified by top Congress leadership to sharpen attacks on CEC Kumar.
Driven by a political vendetta, on 4th October, the Congress government in Keralam has ordered a fresh Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) probe into a 2006 suicide case linked to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who was serving as the state’s Public Works Department (PWD) secretary at the time. The fact that the issue involved multiple officials of that era, not just Gyanesh Kumar, was conveniently swept under the rug when the CPI(M) was in power. Now, with political alignments shifting and CEC Gyanesh Kumar already at the centre of controversy, both CPI(M) and Congress, despite claiming to be political rivals, have joined hands to bring the matter back into focus and hound CEC Kumar.
While the propaganda, protests, and politics around SIR are not new, former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi casting aspersions on SIR and CEC Gyanesh Kumar, supreme court judges, both retired and sitting, delivering speeches attacking CEC Kumar and the SIR indicate a concerted effort to influence not only public opinion but also the judiciary.
It must not be forgotten that back in September 2023, the then CJI DY Chandrachud had admitted that media trials affect the administration of justice. “Administration of justice is affected by ‘media trials’. Need to decide at which stage (of investigation) details should be disclosed. This is a very important issue because it involves the interests of the victim and accused,” he said.
It is apparent that dominant public discourse on any issue, particularly those of national significance like SIR and Chief Election Commissioner’s impartiality and integrity, might influence court rulings, particularly when even Supreme Court judges are involved in politically charged issues and biased statements.
