Opposition leaders on Wednesday sharply criticised the Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with litigants describing it as a “dark day for the judiciary”.The BJP, however, defended the apex court and accused critics of undermining democratic institutions.The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission, saying it advances the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections.The verdict came on petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Jha, Congress MP KC Venugopal, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule, activist Yogendra Yadav and others challenging the Election Commission’s notifications on SIR in Bihar and other states.Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan termed the ruling a “dark day for the judiciary”, alleging that elections in several states had already been conducted on the basis of a “totally partisan” SIR exercise in which “more than 10 per cent voters were deleted” through a “non-transparent process”.Political activist and litigant Yogendra Yadav also criticised the judgment and the court’s handling of the matter.In a post on X, Yadav said he did not attend court to hear the verdict because, according to him, “the case was decided long ago”. He alleged that the Supreme Court had gradually shifted focus away from examining the constitutionality of the SIR process and instead confined itself to grievance redressal issues.Yadav further claimed that the court effectively allowed the Election Commission to continue with elections and subsequent phases of SIR despite unresolved constitutional concerns, calling the process a “fait accompli”.He accused the judiciary of permitting the disenfranchisement of millions of voters and compared the verdict in ADR vs Union of India (2026) with the controversial ADM Jabalpur judgment during the Emergency era, describing it as a “constitutional abdication” and warning it could mark “the crumbling of the last constitutional wall”.Reacting strongly to the criticism, BJP IT department head Amit Malviya said it was “deeply unfortunate” that a litigant before the Supreme Court had chosen to question the motives of the country’s highest constitutional court after an unfavourable verdict.Malviya said disagreement with a judgment and seeking legal remedies were legitimate democratic rights, but accusing the court of enabling disenfranchisement was “reckless, irresponsible and corrosive to institutional faith”.He said the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of SIR after hearing “extensive arguments from all sides”, adding that dismissing the verdict as predetermined reflected contempt for constitutional processes.The BJP leader also criticised Yadav personally, accusing him of “thriving on disruption, distortion and political theatrics while masquerading as an activist”. He said India’s democracy was “far stronger than the cynicism of self-appointed crusaders who believe every institution is legitimate only when it agrees with them”.