The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a ‘SIR’ for Bihar. This meant that the Detailed Revision of Voters List (SIR) was announced on June 24, followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court in July, the same month that the case began to be heard. During the hearing, the court issued several interim orders relating to receipt of documents (such as receipt of Aadhaar card), publication of list of deleted names and appeals. Thus, in late January 2026, after about 29 days of debate, the Supreme Court deferred judgment on the matter. The Supreme Court yesterday, May 27, 2026, gave a final verdict on the matter under Article 324 of the Constitution. (SIR) and called it a legitimate effort to ensure free and fair elections. The court rejected the petitioners’ contention that it was a ploy to verify citizenship through the back door.
It should be noted that by the end of 2025, the SIR will be completed. Along with the extension of SIR, separate applications were also made for other states (eg West Bengal, Tamil Nadu). SIR has already expanded to many more states. First, the SIR Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) appealed against the process. They are represented by lawyers like Prashant Bhushan. The next petitioners were political activist Yogendra Yadav; And political leaders from opposition parties included Mahua Maitra (TMC MP), Manoj Jha (RJD MP), K.C. Benugopal (Congress MP), Supriya Sule (NCP-SP MP), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other Social Workers/Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Later, DMK (Tamil Nadu) and West Bengal governments (Mamata Banerjee/TMC) filed petitions challenging its implementation in their respective states. These applicants filed SIR. (SIR) as arbitrary. They argued that it violated Articles 14, 19, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution. They alleged that the SIR unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the public, disenfranchising a large number of people, especially the marginalized.
Political activist Yogendra Yadav and prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan criticized the Supreme Court verdict. In an emotional tweet, Yogendra Yadav said that despite being a litigant, he did not go to the Supreme Court to hear the verdict as he knew earlier that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of SIR. He said that he had already received several indications. Instead of examining the constitutional validity of the SIR, it focuses only on the grievance redressal mechanism. Where did the Election Commission get the right to make such a big decision without the approval of the Parliament? “The real news is that from now on, the BJP will decide who can vote in elections in this country and who can’t,” he said. Yadav called the verdict a blow to Indian democracy. He claimed that the ruling party has handed over the control of the voter list to the ruling party through the Election Commission. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners in the case, fully supported Yadav’s tweet. He termed the verdict as “a black day for the judiciary” referring to it as the ‘ADM’ given by the Supreme Court 50 years ago, which dismissed the fundamental rights of individuals during emergency. Jabalpur compares with Rai. Yogendra Yadav also reiterated the same.Elections should be conducted with correct voter list. But what does it mean to disenfranchise millions of people on the basis of population in the run-up to elections? Referring to those who have been disenfranchised, the Supreme Court said, ‘Okay, even if you can’t vote this time, you can vote next time. What a thing! We have agreed that there should be no wrong names in the voter list. But how can it be accepted that the correct name has been omitted from the voter list? If not politically motivated, where is the logic to rush this process? Again, why are the names of people who are not supposed to vote for the BJP excluded from the voter rolls of millions in almost every state? If the court says this is not a backdoor citizenship verification technique, then what is? Why doesn’t Election Commission give details about 50/60 million names deleted from voter list? Only in West Bengal, how many lakhs of people are left out? It is not yet known why their names were omitted from the voter list. BJP-ruled state governments have already announced that those whose names are not in the voter list will not get government benefits. So it has not become a question of SIR citizenship? Finally, a fundamental question—how many judgments has the Supreme Court given against the government in the last 12 years? Why does the Supreme Court go in favor of the government in almost all controversial issues? Does this mean that the highest court of the country has become the biggest court of the government? What is left of democracy in our country?