Loses Faith in Supreme Court Over Voter Deletions and Curbs
Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP has publicly voiced a profound loss of faith in the , declaring that he is “tired of keeping on going” to the apex court over the alleged wrongful deletion of voters from electoral rolls and the sweeping restrictions imposed on peaceful protests in Delhi. His remarks, delivered at a press conference on , came against the backdrop of the -led demonstration at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Sibal’s disillusionment has sent ripples through the legal community, raising critical questions about judicial responsiveness in high-stakes constitutional matters.
A Crisis of Confidence
“I am tired of keeping on going to the Supreme Court. I am speaking for myself. I don't think there is any use of going there. I don't have much hope in the ,” Sibal said. He emphasized that his remarks reflected personal experience after months of arguments failed to secure substantive relief on the of electoral rolls. “If anybody can save the in these times, it is the . But I am tired… Whatever has to happen, will happen,” he added.
When asked whether he was dissatisfied with the Chief Justice of India, Sibal clarified that his role as a lawyer compelled him to continue fighting cases irrespective of the court’s receptiveness. “We are lawyers, there is no question of being satisfied or dissatisfied. We have to fight the people's cases. If there is injustice, we have to file a petition, whether the Court hears or not,” he stated.
The SIR Controversy
At the heart of Sibal’s frustration lies the Special Intensive Revision process, a targeted drive to update electoral rolls in several states. Lawyers had repeatedly flagged alleged wrongful deletions and additions of voter names before the Supreme Court, but no was granted. Sibal pointed to the findings of , which have restored voters’ names in 93% of decided appeals so far—a clear indication, he argued, that the vast majority of deletions were erroneous.
“We told the Supreme Court many times that the voters' names are being wrongly deleted and wrongly included; we argued for months. The evidence is before the public. And the appellate tribunals now say 93% of the voters were wrongly removed. So the Supreme Court must have known. But no relief was given,” Sibal said. The data suggests that out of approximately 13 crore voters flagged during the SIR process, a significant proportion may have been disenfranchised arbitrarily.
Protest Curbs Under Scrutiny
Sibal’s criticism also targeted the ’s heavy-handed response to the CJP protest. Authorities deployed 28 battalions of , closed metro stations, restricted train arrivals, and imposed under . Sibal questioned the rationale: “If a person or a community wants to protest peacefully, then who is in danger? The society is not in danger. It seems that the government is in danger.”
He highlighted the detention of activists traveling from Karnataka and West Bengal before they could reach the protest venue. “If a youth gets on a train, will you arrest him? On what basis will you arrest him? What kind of law is this?” he asked. Sibal also revealed that three lawyers from the CJP’s legal team—, , and —were intercepted by individuals claiming to be from the while en route to the Supreme Court. An application seeking an FIR was filed but remained pending before a magistrate.
The Court’s Rebuttal
In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court on held a special hearing on the protest curbs and took of the restrictions. A bench—not specified in reports—stated, “We are here to RESTORE the faith of Mr Sibal in this institution… whose confidence has been one of the surest weapons in our arsenal.” The court directed the removal of barricades across Delhi, restoration of normal metro services and internet connectivity, and assured that lawyers must be allowed to discharge their duties without obstruction.
Despite this swift response, Sibal’s earlier remarks underscore a deeper unease. The bench’s comment appeared aimed at repairing institutional trust, but Sibal’s critique suggests that isolated corrective measures may not suffice when systemic issues persist.
Broader Implications for the Legal System
Sibal’s public loss of confidence carries significant weight. As a senior advocate with over five decades of practice and a former Union Minister, his words resonate beyond the immediate controversy. They reflect a growing sentiment among litigants and lawyers that the Supreme Court, despite its constitutional role as the ultimate guardian, sometimes falls short in delivering timely remedies for democratic integrity.
The electoral roll controversy also raises concerns about the under . If appellate tribunals are restoring names at a 93% rate, the initial deletions appear arbitrary. The Supreme Court’s reluctance to intervene during the SIR process, despite being repeatedly apprised, may embolden administrative overreach. Legal experts argue that the court’s hands-off approach could set a dangerous precedent for future electoral revisions.
Impact on Legal Practice and Public Trust
For practicing lawyers, Sibal’s disillusionment highlights the practical challenges of litigating against state actions that enjoy temporary immunity due to procedural complexity. The reliance on appellate tribunals, which are often overburdened and slow, may not offer the urgency required in electoral matters.
Moreover, the protest curbs case illustrates the tension between public order and under . The Supreme Court’s intervention on restored some normalcy, but the very need for such intervention—after days of detentions and restrictions—exposes a gap in the protection of civil liberties. Legal professionals may need to strategize more aggressively to prevent pre-emptive state action before court orders can be sought.
Conclusion
’s stark admission—that he has “lost trust” in the Supreme Court—is a wake-up call for the judiciary. While the court’s prompt action on the protest curbs may have temporarily assuaged concerns, the underlying issues of voter deletion and judicial responsiveness remain unresolved. As the nation heads into electoral cycles, the integrity of the electoral roll and the credibility of the apex court are intertwined. Sibal’s words, though personal, echo a broader anxiety about the efficacy of in an era of heightened political polarization. The Supreme Court’s ability to restore faith will depend not only on episodic hearings but on consistent, principled engagement with rights-based claims.
voter roll irregularities - wrongful deletion - electoral integrity - protest restrictions - judicial disillusion - institutional faith - constitutional protection
