MUST READ: SIR row: Supreme Court refuses interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks EC response
‘I don’t have much hope’
Sibal said his remarks reflected his personal experience as a lawyer who has repeatedly approached the apex court over alleged wrongful deletions and additions to voter rolls.
“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 added, “If anyone can save the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court. But I am tired… Whatever has to happen, will happen.”
SIR and voter deletions
Sibal said the Supreme Court had been informed for months that voters’ names were being wrongly deleted and wrongly included during the SIR process, but the court had not granted relief.
“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,” he said.
Referring to appellate tribunals in West Bengal, Sibal claimed that 93 per cent of decided appeals had resulted in voters’ names being restored, which, he argued, showed that most deletions were wrongful.
Protest curbs questioned
Sibal’s comments came amid curbs imposed in Delhi before the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.
He questioned the need for sweeping restrictions, saying the gathering was peaceful, and alleged that authorities had detained activists and disrupted transport to Delhi.
“I don’t know which direction this country is heading. I don’t know if we will ever get relief from the court,” Sibal said.
DON'T MISS: Delhi SIR: 47.5 Lakh Names Off Draft Roll, 33 Lakh Voters Flagged For Discrepancies
'Will continue fighting cases'
Asked whether he was dissatisfied with the Chief Justice of India, Sibal said his responsibility as a lawyer was to continue fighting cases involving alleged injustice, irrespective of whether the court heard them.
He had earlier, in 2022, said he had “no hope left” in the Supreme Court after five decades of practice, arguing that judicial pronouncements often did not translate into protection on the ground.