Sibal questions Supreme Court response to electoral roll disputes
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has voiced deep frustration with the Supreme Court’s handling of challenges to electoral roll revisions, saying he has little hope of obtaining judicial relief as protests over alleged voting irregularities confront sweeping police restrictions in Delhi.
Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, Sibal said repeated approaches to the court had failed to address concerns about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His remarks followed legal proceedings over restrictions imposed before a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
“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 Supreme Court of India,” Sibal said.
He nevertheless acknowledged the court’s constitutional importance, describing it as the institution capable of protecting the Constitution. His criticism focused on what he regarded as the judiciary’s inadequate response to complaints about voters being wrongly excluded from or included in electoral lists.
The allegations remain contested. The Election Commission has defended the revision process as an exercise intended to improve the accuracy of voter records, while opposition parties and campaigners say the changes risk disenfranchising eligible citizens. The legal challenges have not established that the disputed deletions were unlawful.
Sibal also questioned the preventive detention of people travelling to Delhi to join Saturday’s protest at Jantar Mantar, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and supported by opposition groups and civil society activists. He challenged the justification for stopping people before they reached the proposed demonstration.
The restrictions included disruptions to public transport, tightened security around central Delhi and limits affecting accommodation and movement. Police maintained that measures were necessary to preserve public order amid expectations of a large gathering. Organisers argued that the arrangements interfered with peaceful assembly and ordinary travel.
On Friday, Sibal was among senior lawyers who approached the Supreme Court over proposed closures of Metro stations and the cancellation of train services. He appeared in proceedings involving CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, who challenged the denial of permission for the demonstration.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, examined the competing interests of protesters and residents who depended on transport services. The judges questioned whether organisers could seek relaxation of restrictions without first challenging the police decision refusing permission to assemble.
The court subsequently directed authorities against blanket shutdowns of Metro and railway services, emphasising that security arrangements must be proportionate and should not impose excessive hardship on the wider public. It allowed regulation of services rather than an indiscriminate suspension of transport across the capital.
Those directions became the subject of further litigation after Saturday’s security operation. A contempt petition alleged that authorities had failed to comply with the court’s order, while another application challenged the detention of political leaders and other participants.
The Supreme Court arranged a special hearing on Sunday before Justices Bagchi and Mohana to examine the complaints. The proceedings placed the enforcement of its transport directions alongside questions about preventive detention, without resolving the wider dispute over electoral roll revisions.
The CJP demonstration targeted Kumar over claims that the revision exercise had removed large numbers of eligible voters. Protest organisers demanded his resignation and called for scrutiny of the Election Commission’s decisions. The commission and the governing Bharatiya Janata Party have rejected accusations that the process was designed to benefit the ruling party.
Police detained demonstrators and political figures during Saturday’s operation, while organisers announced another gathering at Jantar Mantar on Sunday. Authorities indicated that restrictions on assemblies would continue in parts of central Delhi, despite some easing of the broader security arrangements.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the court’s earlier consideration of petitions concerning the SIR exercise. Judges have sought responses from the authorities on allegations surrounding the revision, but the substantive questions about individual voter entries and the legality of the process remain before the judiciary.
Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, Sibal said repeated approaches to the court had failed to address concerns about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His remarks followed legal proceedings over restrictions imposed before a demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
“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 Supreme Court of India,” Sibal said.
He nevertheless acknowledged the court’s constitutional importance, describing it as the institution capable of protecting the Constitution. His criticism focused on what he regarded as the judiciary’s inadequate response to complaints about voters being wrongly excluded from or included in electoral lists.
The allegations remain contested. The Election Commission has defended the revision process as an exercise intended to improve the accuracy of voter records, while opposition parties and campaigners say the changes risk disenfranchising eligible citizens. The legal challenges have not established that the disputed deletions were unlawful.
Sibal also questioned the preventive detention of people travelling to Delhi to join Saturday’s protest at Jantar Mantar, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and supported by opposition groups and civil society activists. He challenged the justification for stopping people before they reached the proposed demonstration.
The restrictions included disruptions to public transport, tightened security around central Delhi and limits affecting accommodation and movement. Police maintained that measures were necessary to preserve public order amid expectations of a large gathering. Organisers argued that the arrangements interfered with peaceful assembly and ordinary travel.
On Friday, Sibal was among senior lawyers who approached the Supreme Court over proposed closures of Metro stations and the cancellation of train services. He appeared in proceedings involving CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, who challenged the denial of permission for the demonstration.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, examined the competing interests of protesters and residents who depended on transport services. The judges questioned whether organisers could seek relaxation of restrictions without first challenging the police decision refusing permission to assemble.
The court subsequently directed authorities against blanket shutdowns of Metro and railway services, emphasising that security arrangements must be proportionate and should not impose excessive hardship on the wider public. It allowed regulation of services rather than an indiscriminate suspension of transport across the capital.
Those directions became the subject of further litigation after Saturday’s security operation. A contempt petition alleged that authorities had failed to comply with the court’s order, while another application challenged the detention of political leaders and other participants.
The Supreme Court arranged a special hearing on Sunday before Justices Bagchi and Mohana to examine the complaints. The proceedings placed the enforcement of its transport directions alongside questions about preventive detention, without resolving the wider dispute over electoral roll revisions.
The CJP demonstration targeted Kumar over claims that the revision exercise had removed large numbers of eligible voters. Protest organisers demanded his resignation and called for scrutiny of the Election Commission’s decisions. The commission and the governing Bharatiya Janata Party have rejected accusations that the process was designed to benefit the ruling party.
Police detained demonstrators and political figures during Saturday’s operation, while organisers announced another gathering at Jantar Mantar on Sunday. Authorities indicated that restrictions on assemblies would continue in parts of central Delhi, despite some easing of the broader security arrangements.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the court’s earlier consideration of petitions concerning the SIR exercise. Judges have sought responses from the authorities on allegations surrounding the revision, but the substantive questions about individual voter entries and the legality of the process remain before the judiciary.