The political activist and psephologist sharply criticised the apex court verdict upholding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, claiming the court moved away from examining the constitutionality of the SIR and “focused on grievance redressal and arbitration”.
In a post on X after the judgment, Yadav said he did not go to the Supreme Court to hear the order in the SIR case because, in his view, the outcome was clear long before the formal verdict.
Read more: SC upholds Election Commission’s SIR of Bihar voter rolls as constitutional
“As a litigant in this case, and as someone who was given the honour of addressing the court, I should have been hopeful, anxious or at least curious. I was not. The case was decided long ago,” he wrote.
Yadav, who had challenged the SIR process, argued that the trajectory of the case was settled months earlier when, according to him, the court shifted its focus away from examining the constitutional validity of the exercise.
“The court moved away from examining the constitutionality of SIR and effectively converted itself into a Consumer Forum, focused on grievance redressal and arbitration, rather than constitutional principles,” he said.He said the matter was “effectively decided” when the apex court allowed the Election Commission to proceed with elections in Bihar without first deciding the constitutional challenge to the exercise and without directing corrections to what he termed “glaring defects” in the post-SIR electoral rolls.
According to Yadav, the continuation of the SIR process during the hearings had rendered the challenge largely ineffective.
“SIR had become a fait accompli,” he said, adding that remarks made during the hearings that no one would be allowed to obstruct the exercise signalled the court’s approach.
In some of his strongest remarks, Yadav said the verdict amounted to judicial endorsement of disenfranchisement.
The simple truth is that the verdict has “authorised the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens, at least 59 million so far, that could go up eventually to 100 million”, he wrote.
He said the judgment had given the Election Commission sweeping authority over electoral rolls.
He claimed “a carte blanche” has been handed over to the EC “to do what it pleases with the voters’ list”.
Drawing a historical parallel, Yadav compared the verdict in ADR vs Union of India (2026) to the Emergency-era ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) case, widely criticised for upholding the suspension of civil liberties during the Emergency.
“ADR vs Union of India (2026) is to our times what ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) was to the previous assault on our democracy,” he wrote, expressing hope that the judgment would eventually be “recognised for what it was. And reversed.”
In a separate post, Yadav said the significance of the ruling extended beyond the legal validation of the SIR.
“The news is not that the Supreme Court has today declared the Election Commission’s SIR to be constitutional. The real news is that now in this country, the BJP will decide who can vote and who cannot,” he said.
He added that parts of the Constitution, which he described as “perhaps the last pillar” protecting democratic institutions, had “broken and fallen today”.
Yadav also shared a question posed by what he described as a “scholar friend” about whether boycotting the Supreme Court in cases involving the executive could be a form of protest and whether publicly advocating such a move might amount to contempt of court. He did not offer an answer in the post.
Read more: Congress asks EC to postpone Maharashtra SIR exercise amid Ashadhi pilgrimage
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Election Commission’s power to conduct the SIR and said the exercise “breathes life” into the constitutional mandate for fair elections.
Delivering a major victory for the poll panel, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also held that the exercise advances the “constitutional imperative of free and fair elections“.
