India

'Tired of Going to Supreme Court, I Have Lost Trust': Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal Expresses Deep Disillusionment

By GS Team
11 Oct 20261 min read
TukuTouch Logo
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, expresses profound distrust in the Supreme Court, citing repeated failures to secure relief on critical democratic issues like voter list anomalies. He questions the utility of approaching the court, despite its constitutional role, due to ignored evidence and lack of timely justice. Sibal's critique highlights growing concerns over judicial accountability and institutional responsiveness in safeguarding democratic processes.

Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info

'Tired of Going to Supreme Court, I Have Lost Trust': Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal Expresses Deep Disillusionment

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has voiced sharp disillusionment with the apex court, declaring that he has lost trust in the system after repeatedly failing to secure substantive relief on critical democratic issues.

Speaking publicly, Sibal stated that he was exhausted from approaching the Supreme Court of India, questioning the utility of ongoing legal battles. He remarked that while many citizens still look to the court as the ultimate protector of the Constitution, his personal confidence in obtaining justice has eroded.

Voter Deletions and Ignored Evidence

The senior advocate pointed to prolonged legal battles concerning voter list anomalies, highlighting that despite months of rigorous arguments detailing wrongful name additions and deletions, meaningful intervention remained elusive. He noted that appellate tribunals have since acknowledged that a vast majority of those removed voters faced wrongful disqualification, asserting that the top court ignored clear evidence.

Broader Concerns Over Institutional Faith

Sibal’s frank remarks underscore mounting debates within legal and political circles regarding judicial accountability and the timeliness of remedies in high-stakes constitutional matters. His critique throws light on the growing friction between legal practitioners and institutional responsiveness in safeguarding democratic processes.