Oitihjya

I did not to go to the Supreme Court today to hear its order in the SIR case. 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. We were only waiting for the transcript and its fine print. The course of this case was settled in August last year. Having heard arguments against SIR for three days, 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. The case was effectively decided when the apex court allowed the ECI to rush through the Bihar elections without first deciding the matter, and without requiring the ECI to rectify even the most glaring defects in post-SIR rolls. There was little left of this case once the ECI proceeded with the second and then the third phase of SIR, while the Hon’ble Court leisurely heard arguments about its constitutionality. SIR had become a fait accompli. Any remaining doubt disappeared when the Hon’ble judges observed in open court that no one would be allowed to obstruct SIR. The final nail in the coffin of this petition was hammered during the hearing of another petition before the same Bench, when an Hon’ble judge remarked that millions denied their right to vote need not fret, since they could vote in the next election. At that moment, the court abdicated its constitutional responsibility. Shorn of legalese, the simple truth is that the highest court of a constitutional democracy has already authorised the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens — at least 59 million so far, could go up eventually to 100 million. It was inconceivable that the court would now declare SIR unconstitutional and annul all post-SIR elections. The lawyers were waiting for the the exact legal reasoning deployed to arrive at a conclusion that was already known. Such legal gymnastics did not interest me. Some friends were looking for some crumbs in the hope that the court might at least wish to save face, if not save the voters. Eventually that too did not happen. Polite noises apart, the Court has handed over a carteblac to the ECI to do what it pleases with the voters list. 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. We must hope that the SIR judgment does not mark the crumbling of the last constitutional wall, as ADM Jabalpur once did. We must believe that one day this constitutional abdication by the guardian of the Constitution will be recognised for what it was. And reversed. Jai Hind!