Supreme Court's EC SIR Verdict: Watch Yogendra Yadav's Hot Take As BJP Claims 'Doubts Destroyed'

Added: 2026-05-29

[00:00:00]uh there were huge chunk of people opposing it. Uh you were one of uh them.

[00:00:05]Uh I would just like to know what's your first reaction after hearing it.

[00:00:10]>> As one of the litigants, I have reasons to be disappointed, but I'm shocked.

[00:00:18]Not shocked only because I was litigant and the judgment did not go in my favor.

[00:00:23]That can happen.

[00:00:25]Not shocked because I had expected a very different judgment. For the last few months, the course, the very strange course that this particular case had taken made it absolutely clear which way things were going. I'm shocked that the Supreme Court of this country has allowed the fundamental democratic principle to be overturned.

[00:00:50]In a democracy, voters choose the government. The government cannot choose the voters. And the net effect of what the Supreme Court has done today is that now BJP shall decide who can be a voter in this country and who cannot.

[00:01:10]Technically you might say election commission will decide. But because the same Supreme Court has done absolutely nothing to ensure that the election commission's own appointment is a nonpartisan way and given the manner in which the election commission behaves these days, it is absolutely true that now BJP decides who will be the voter and on the basis of their votes BJP will say we have one popular mandate. This is complete overturning of the fundamental principle of universal adult franchise.

[00:01:47]I'm shocked that the Supreme Court says that uh the number was not disenfranchisement was not widespread.

[00:01:57]The court these are court's words. Court says the data placed on record does not disclose a level of disenfranchisement so widespread or systemic as to indicate a constitutional infirmity in the design of the exercise.

[00:02:13]me lord more than 4 million persons were disenfranchised in Bihar alone in the country so far 59 million nearly 6 cr people have been excluded from the voters list and you do not think this is widespread what is widespread when 90 cr people are taken out of this country's roles is that going to be widespread I'm sad and surprised that the court believes that there were procedural safeguards were in place. Me lord after 27 lakh people have been disenfranchised in Bengal where you saw what this design can do.

[00:03:08]These 27 lakh people who had produced documents including passport of India have been disenfranchised and you think these are decent safeguards.

[00:03:20]I'm astonished that the Supreme Court of India has put its seal of approval on fundamental overturning of democratic principles.

[00:03:34]To my mind the ADR and others versus union of India which is the name of the case is very much like the ADM Jabalpur case during the emergency.

[00:03:49]The ADM Jalapur, the most infamous case in the history of Indian judiciary was a case where the Supreme Court then by 41 majority said during emergency even if your life is taken away you cannot question it in the court of law.

[00:04:08]Today the Supreme Court of India has said if millions and millions of people's fundamental right to vote is taken away there's absolutely no problem. This is complete abdication of the constitutional responsibility of the highest court.

[00:04:28]And to my mind, this day will go down in the history of Indian judiciary as one of the darkest moment, possibly the second darkest moment in the history of Indian judiciary.

[00:04:40]>> Sir, uh how would you comment? What would you comment on the point when court says that SIR cannot just be struck down because uh the process is different from the normal revision also on uh citizenship uh it has said that uh it's not for deciding the citizenship by election commission if they have such need they can refer it to committed authority of central government and then they will take the action. It was just for the satisfaction of commission that they looked after the citizenship.

[00:05:15]>> The Supreme Court has given an extraordinary interpretation of an extraordinary rule in the Indian law.

[00:05:23]The Indian electoral law says that normally election re voters list revision will take place through summary revision through intensive revisions.

[00:05:33]However, there is a tiny small exceptional clause 21C which says in very special cases for reasons to be given in writing the commission may order rewriting of electoral roles in any constituency or part thereof.

[00:05:53]This provision has been invoked only once in the last 75 years for one assembly constituency of Uttar Pradesh Takurara because there was a fraud in voters list.

[00:06:07]That tiny exceptional provision has been used by the election commission now to rewrite the electoral roles of the entire country.

[00:06:19]And the Supreme Court says well technically a constituency can also mean 543 constituency. Well yeah me lord lovely interpretation extraordinary interpretation of an extraordinary provision. But by and large how can you turn the entire country into an exceptional? I don't understand it.

[00:06:42]Judges are wise. They must understand the law better than I do.

[00:06:47]On the citizenship question, the court cannot possibly say that election commission can decide on citizenship because that has already been decided by a bigger bench of the Supreme Court that the election commission cannot.

[00:07:04]So the smart solution the Supreme Court finds is to say election commission can determine citizenship for the purposes of electoral roles but for other purposes your citizenship will be determined by the home ministry once you've lost your vote and as in Bihar in other places the governments are now passing orders to say those who are out of the voters they should also be out of the Russian card should also be out of this benefit should be benefit out of that benefit.

[00:07:38]Then what is the point in saying please refer it to the government? Yes, all that would happen. But in practical operational terms, the citizenship has been taken away. You can't vote. Your welfare rights have been taken away. Yes, you have not been thrown out of the country yet. You've not been put in the detention camp. So that is the mercy that the Supreme Court has shown and that in any case is not the business of the election commission.

[00:08:09]So what the Supreme Court has done is not a relief to these people. The Supreme Court has found a very unusual route to defend the right of the election commission to investigate citizenship which is very sad because it goes against the basic law of the land laid down by Lal Babuhisan judgment of a larger bench of the Supreme Court itself.

[00:08:35]But sir uh at the same time isn't it relieving that court has given four weeks of time to center for deter uh determining the citizenship of those whose names were not in 2003 electoral list. If uh they succeeded approving it it will be included by uh central government. At the same time citizenship would also be defined. So uh it was the concern of you people if if government does it within 4 years uh 4 weeks as per the court's deduction how how do you take it?

[00:09:11]>> The court has not given any relief here.

[00:09:13]The only thing that the court has said is people whose names have been struck off the electoral roles on the ground that they are illegal migrants, those cases should be referred to the government in 4 weeks. The government can take four years to decide it. The commission has to refer those cases within four years. The Supreme Court has not even said that the name should be made public. Even if that were to happen, I would be slightly satisfied because at least the country will get to know how many illegal migrants were found in Nepal in in Bihar or in Bengal.

[00:09:52]Even that unfortunately the Supreme Court has not made mandatory. What they have said is a basic law which is written into SIR itself. The SIR says that the names of such people will be sent to competent authority. So the court has only reiterated what the SIR has said. The court has only provided better legal justifications for what SIR had already done. The court has found higher principles to justify what has already happened.

[00:10:30]The court has found lovely legal vocabulary to legitimize the largest ever disenfranchisement in the history of humanity not just India.

[00:10:43]>> What from here sir do you think uh any scope for taking it to?

[00:10:52]>> I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if there's a scope for review. The lawyers would decide it. uh but there's one review which is conducted inside the court. The other is a review done by history. Today every Indian judge, every Indian lawyer and every student who studying law is taught ADM Jabalpur.

[00:11:16]They are told this was the darkest spot of Indian judiciary. Never do it again.

[00:11:23]And the ADM Jabalpur judgment was overruled by the son of one of the judges who had given that judgment.

[00:11:30]Justice Chandraud his son Justice Chandraud actually enulled it. So I do not know of the review in this court within the next few weeks or months. But I do know this shall be reviewed by history. I do know that this will go down as one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of Indian judiciary. I do know the people of India shall review it.

[00:12:13]Okay.

[00:12:35]or say Supreme Election Commission.

[00:13:08]Election Commission Election Commission Supreme Court case.

[00:13:54]Emergency case and others.

[00:14:27]Right to vote.

[00:14:46]Pete Mi Authority detention Enter election commissional migrants Supreme Court.

[00:16:19]illegal migrants foreigners.

[00:16:25]Illegal migrants. Illegal foreigners.

[00:16:30]Bengal, Tamil, Supreme Court.

[00:16:50]Technically, exceptional exceptional interpretation list.

[00:17:34]constituenc is exceptional. CL Supreme Courtitu Supreme Court finally cut.

[00:19:02]Citizenship.

[00:19:04]Sorry.

[00:19:11]review.

[00:19:35]review.

[00:20:00]review.