This paper seeks to diagnose how legal reasoning can delude itself through its own discursive practices, failing to deal with the issues which it claims to address. It analyses the judicial discourse of the Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh decision (2017) which dealt with the issue of corruption through the use of identities in elections. The larger argument of this paper is that the majority judgment, despite its important pronouncement, failed itself by its own reasoning. The paper argues that one has to rescue the majority decision against itself or against its own reasoning in order to make sense of social context adjudication in the wake of the issue of corruption in elections.