A petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other opposition leaders challenging alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls could not be taken up by the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the court registry identified 14 defects that remain unresolved.
The petition, filed following a large opposition march on October 12, seeks suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise and an independent investigation into alleged large-scale deletion of voters’ names from electoral rolls.
According to information available on the Supreme Court’s website, the registry raised objections concerning missing or illegible pages and an unclear copy of the identity card of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who is also the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and a co-petitioner.
On Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant indicated that the matters would be listed once the filing defects were rectified.
The CJI conveyed this assurance to senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who mentioned a matter on behalf of a journalist, while directing that the outstanding defects be removed.
Opposition Leaders Seek Independent Audit of Voter Deletions
The petition calls for an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate changes made to electoral rolls during the SIR process.
The proposed committee would include technical experts and other eminent citizens and would be tasked with conducting a time-bound audit of voter deletions and modifications.
Apart from Gandhi and Kharge, the petitioners include Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, CPI leader D Raja, JMM MP Mahua Majhi, CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby and Indian Union Muslim League leader E T Mohammed Basheer.
The Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have been named as respondents.
Petition Seeks Suspension of Ongoing SIR Exercise
Among the interim reliefs sought is a direction to halt the Special Intensive Revision currently being conducted across states until the Supreme Court decides the issues raised in the petition.
The opposition leaders have also requested safeguards against the removal of eligible voters from electoral rolls.
They have sought directions requiring authorities to provide notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deleting any elector’s name, in accordance with the law.
Another prayer concerns the inclusion of eligible voters in Punjab and other poll-bound states. The petition seeks to ensure that such persons can apply for inclusion until the final date permitted under the applicable legal provisions.
The petition further demands booth-wise publication of the names of deleted voters, the reasons for their removal and age-wise and gender-wise details of the deletions.
It also seeks an effective mechanism for restoring the names of eligible electors who were removed from the voter lists.
Election Commission Records and SIR Decisions Under Challenge
The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to produce records concerning decisions taken during the electoral roll revision exercise.
These include complete files, meeting agendas, minutes, official notings and objections recorded by Election Commissioners in connection with the disputed SIR decisions.
The petition also seeks access to relevant ECINET and ERONET logs and the files concerning the June 24, 2025 decision to initiate the SIR exercise nationwide.
The petitioners want the Court to examine whether the disputed decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Article 324 places the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.
The petition seeks the quashing of any decision found to have been taken without lawful authority.
It also calls for appropriate action against those responsible for violations of constitutional or statutory provisions governing electoral roll preparation and revision, including action under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, wherever warranted.
Another relief concerns online Form 6, which is used for voter registration. The petitioners have sought directions requiring the Election Commission to ensure that the online form conforms to the format prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, unless those rules are amended through the legally prescribed procedure.
CJI Had Earlier Declined Request for Meeting
Before approaching the Supreme Court through judicial proceedings, Gandhi and Kharge had requested a meeting with the Chief Justice to submit a memorandum.
The memorandum concerned the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commission, alleged arbitrary arrests of several students, the closure of Metro stations and the cancellation of trains.
However, CJI Surya Kant declined the request, explaining that a meeting concerning matters already pending before courts would conflict with the separation of powers and established standards of judicial propriety.
At the same time, the Chief Justice assured the opposition leaders that any petition filed through the judicial process would receive an early hearing.
The latest petition has yet to be listed because the objections raised by the Supreme Court registry remain to be addressed.
