NEW DELHI, India, October 12 (ANI) — Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge and other opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. They have alleged procedural irregularities and sought an independent audit of voter databases and deletions.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise nationwide pending adjudication of the issues raised. It also calls for an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the implementation of the revision exercise and review the technical systems governing electoral rolls and electronic voting machines (EVMs).
The petitioners have questioned whether the Chief Election Commissioner exercised the Election Commission’s collective powers without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. They have also sought records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide SIR, including files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the commissioners.
The plea contends that the Election Commission must function as a multi-member constitutional body and that decisions concerning electoral rolls must comply with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The petition refers to a newspaper report published on September 23, 2026, which stated that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months concerning decisions related to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and access to electoral-roll data.
It also acknowledges the Election Commission’s response that the reports presented only one aspect of the matter, differences of opinion were normal in deliberative processes, and its decisions were unanimous. The petitioners have argued that the Commission’s official records must be examined to determine whether the decisions were made in accordance with the law.
The petition also questions whether a formal decision authorizing the nationwide SIR was taken.
It refers to responses received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, stating that an application seeking files and notings concerning the decision to undertake the exercise was provided only the Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025.
According to the petition, the First Appellate Authority subsequently recorded that the Commission had, until then, not taken a decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025. The petitioners have argued that this statement appears inconsistent with the Commission’s June 24, 2025, order and its press note dated September 26, 2026, which stated that the order had received the unanimous approval of the Commission.
They have sought production of the complete file documenting the decision to determine whether the nationwide exercise was lawfully authorized.
The petition also questions the modification of the online Form 6 on the ECINET platform in July 2026 to include a declaration concerning the presence of the applicant or their relatives on an earlier SIR electoral roll.
Form 6 is the prescribed application for inclusion in electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The petition alleges that the additional declaration was introduced without a corresponding amendment to the applicable rules, potentially placing an additional burden on eligible citizens, particularly first-time voters.
It also refers to the Supreme Court’s oral clarification on October 5 in pending SIR proceedings that the court had not approved the modified Form 6.
The petitioners have sought a direction requiring the online form to conform to the version prescribed under the applicable rules unless those rules are lawfully amended.
Raising concerns about the functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, the petition seeks an independent technical audit of access permissions, alterations to electoral records, deletions and mechanisms for restoring eligible voters.
It alleges that the centralized operation of the databases and the absence of an effective mechanism to reverse erroneous deletions could undermine the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.
The plea also raises concerns about the processing of objections seeking the deletion of names, including alleged bulk filing of Form 7 objections, the use of purportedly forged names, and the targeting of particular communities and women. These allegations have been raised by the petitioners and have yet to be adjudicated.
The petition seeks publication of booth-level details of electors deleted during the SIR, including the reasons for each deletion and a breakdown by age and gender. It also calls for an effective mechanism to restore the names of eligible voters and a direction prohibiting the deletion of any elector without notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The petition cites the draft electoral roll published in Punjab on August 13, 2026, which, according to the plea, reflected a reduction of approximately 20.66 lakh names from an electorate of about 2.14 crore recorded in June 2026.
It further states that approximately 12.80 lakh electors could not be mapped to electoral rolls prepared after the 2003 revision and were required to produce documents within a month to remain on the rolls. According to the petition, the final electoral roll was scheduled to be published on October 12.
The petitioners have argued that the absence of effective safeguards and a functioning restoration mechanism could leave eligible citizens off the electoral rolls ahead of forthcoming elections.
The plea also refers to another pending case alleging that approximately 13 crore names had been deleted from electoral rolls across states and Union Territories during the SIR. However, it acknowledges that the Election Commission has maintained that the figure represented electors marked as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate at the draft stage and did not reflect final deletions.
The petitioners have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the validity of the SIR itself, which the Supreme Court upheld on May 27, 2026, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India. Instead, they seek scrutiny of whether the safeguards laid down by the court and the applicable legal requirements are being followed during implementation.
Beyond the electoral-roll revision, the petition seeks an independent review of the decisions, policies, procedures and technical architecture governing the use and deployment of EVMs, with reference to global best practices.
The petition also seeks preservation and production of relevant records, examination of alleged violations of constitutional and statutory provisions, and appropriate action against those responsible wherever warranted.
The plea was filed following a written communication dated October 11 from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in response to a representation submitted by Gandhi and Kharge on October 10.
According to the petition, the CJI indicated that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for a hearing on October 13 and assured that any petition filed would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with the law.
The petitioners have sought consideration of their plea alongside related proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court. (ANI)
About The Author
