Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and other retired judges on Monday criticised the much-publicised statement of Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on disenfranchisement, saying he should not have made these remarks on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as the issue is sub judice before the apex court.Sitting judge Justice Bhuyan, while delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law on Jattvibeday, said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens was “intrinsically arbitrary” and a “negation” of the constitutional order.He also said the Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens, one with voting rights and the other without voting rights, and no amount of “whataboutery” could justify such a process.In his first reaction to PTI on the issue, former CJI Gavai said, “Judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court.”Gavai said a sitting judge of the apex court should not make statements on an issue which is pending adjudication before the same court.The view of Gavai was echoed by two retired Delhi High Court judges, SN Dhingra and RS Sodhi. They questioned Bhuyan’s remarks.Justice Dhingra said Bhuyan’s statement was “way beyond the limits of a sitting top court judge” and such comments should not be made at a public event when the issue is pending before the same court.”He should have thought a thousand times before making such a statement,” Dhingra said, adding that Justice Bhuyan did not know the full facts of the issue.Asked about reports that decisions relating to the SIR were allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Justice Dhingra said the Election Commissioners themselves could speak about disagreements, if any.”They are all top bureaucrats of the country sitting at very important positions. They can speak for themselves. There is no need for anyone to speak on their behalf,” he said.Retired Delhi High Court judge Justice RS Sodhi questioned the description of the SIR exercise as disenfranchisement, saying the right to vote was governed by the statutory framework.”Whether you have a vote or you don’t have a vote depends upon the statute. If you fall within the parameters of the statute, you have a vote. If you don’t fall within the parameters of the statute, you don’t have a vote,” Justice Sodhi said.He said if a person’s name was wrongly included in an electoral roll or the person did not meet the statutory requirements, the remedy was to follow the law for deletion or seek inclusion again where eligible.Questioning the description of such an exercise as making citizens “second class” in their own country, Justice Sodhi said such “hardline” statements did not reflect a rational approach to the issue.”I mean, these hardline thinking and these hardline statements, to my mind, are not a very mature way of looking at a thing, especially when you are supposed to be in a field which is supposed to be excellent in its rationalising,” he said.Justice Sodhi said the focus should instead be on examining whether a person was legally entitled to remain on the electoral roll and whether the statutory procedure had been followed.The pleas on SIR exercise and several issues, including the validity of a new law related to the poll panel which excludes the CJI from the selection panel, are pending adjudication in the apex court.Justice Bhuyan is known for putting forth his views on issues being discussed in the public domain.