Devender Yadav & Anr. Vs Election Commission of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Devender Yadav & Anr. Vs Election Commission of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No adjudication of the reliefs sought; petitioners granted liberty to obtain the necessary clarification from the Supreme Court; the petition, along with the pending application (CM APPL. 38918/2026), disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition — which the petitioners submit does not concern the legality of the SIR process — can be entertained by this Court in light of the Supreme Court's request to jurisdictional High Courts to keep in abeyance/defer writ proceedings touching the validity of the SIR, and the absence of a clarification from the Supreme Court.

Court's answer

Having regard to the identical Supreme Court orders dated 11.11.2025 (Dola Sen and Shubhankar Sarkar) requesting High Courts to keep in abeyance/defer writ proceedings touching the validity of the SIR, and to the High Court of Sikkim's order dated 12.06.2026 declining to entertain a similar petition, this Court held it inappropriate to entertain the present writ petition in the absence of a clarification from the Supreme Court.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were left at liberty to obtain the necessary clarification from the Supreme Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.), Order dated 01.07.2026 in W.P.(C) 8192/2026 & CM APPL. 38918/2026 (Devender Yadav & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr.): A writ petition raising matters connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was disposed of without adjudication. Relying on identical orders dated 11.11.2025 of the Supreme Court in 'Dola Sen v. Election Commission of India' (W.P. (C) 1074 of 2025) and 'Shubhankar Sarkar v. Election Commission of India' (W.P. (C) 1088 of 2025) — whereby the Supreme Court, being seized of the validity of the SIR, requested jurisdictional High Courts to keep in abeyance/defer writ proceedings touching the validity of the SIR — and on an order dated 12.06.2026 of the High Court of Sikkim in 'Devender Yadav v. Election Commission of India' (W.P.(PIL) No.7 of 2026) refusing to entertain a similar petition despite it not directly concerning the legality of the SIR, the Court held it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition in the absence of a clarification from the Supreme Court. The petitioners were granted liberty to obtain the necessary clarification from the Supreme Court, and the petition along with the pending application was disposed of. The petitioners' contention that the SIR issue before the Supreme Court had already been decided by a judgement dated 27.05.2026 did not alter this outcome.

$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 8192/2026 & CM APPL. 38918/2026

DEVENDER YADAV & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Prateek Mohan Sinha, Mr. Vasu Bhushan, Mr. Nipun Bhushan and Mr. Krishnendu Das, Advocates.

versus

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate (through VC) with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Kumar Utsav, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

%

O R D E R 01.07.2026

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

W.P.(C) 8192/2026

Page 1 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2026 at 11:08:34

Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Election Commission of India (hereinafter ‘ECI’) vehemently opposes the maintainability of the present writ petition and the relief sought thereinbefore this Court.

2.1 He has handed over a compilation which contains various orders passed by the Supreme Court and other High Courts. He has specifically drawn attention to the identical orders passed by the Supreme Court on 11^th November, 2025 in the W.P. (C) 1074 of 2025, titled ‘ Dola Sen v. Election Commission of India ’ and W.P. (C) 1088 of 2025, titled ‘ Shubhankar Sarkar v. Election Commission of India ’. Paragraph 5 of the said order is set out below:

“5. Since this Court is seized of the matter pertaining to validity of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in various States, including Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry etc., we request the jurisdictional High Courts to keep in abeyance/defer the writ proceedings, if any, filed in those High Courts touching the validity of the SIR of electoral rolls in their respective States.”

Mr. Sakal Bhushan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the challenge raised in the present writ petition is not with regard to legality of the SIR process, the present writ petition is

W.P.(C) 8192/2026

Page 2 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2026 at 11:08:34

maintainable before this Court. He submits that the issue which is pending before the Supreme Court in relation to SIR already stands decided vide judgement dated 27^th May, 2026.

In response, Mr. Naidu submits that matters pertaining to SIR are pending before the Supreme Court. He has drawn attention of the Court to an order passed by the High Court of Sikkim on 12^th June, 2026 in W.P.(PIL) No.7 of 2026, titled ‘ Devender Yadav v. Election Commission of India ’ wherein the Court takes note of the fact that the issues raised in the petition therein do not directly concern the legality of the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls (hereinafter ‘SIR’), but relate to the procedure involved for SIR in the state of Sikkim. Nevertheless, the Court has refused to entertain the said writ petition. The relevant observations from the said order are set out below:

“Be that as it may, at the outset, we note that the issues raised herein do not directly concern the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) but rather relate to the procedure evolved for the implementation of the SIR process by the Election Commission of India in the state of Sikkim. Nevertheless, having regard attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that it would not be to the fact that issues arising out of the SIR process are presently engaging the appropriate for this Court to independently examine the matter unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court permits such consideration.”

In view of the aforesaid orders, this Court is of the view that it may not be appropriate to entertain the present writ petition in the absence of a clarification from the Supreme Court. The petitioner would be at liberty to obtain the necessary clarification from the Supreme Court.

W.P.(C) 8192/2026

Page 3 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2026 at 11:08:34

Accordingly, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J

JULY 1, 2026 Rzu

W.P.(C) 8192/2026

Page 4 of 4

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2026 at 11:08:34