The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the three election commissioners on a petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders seeking an independent inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the poll panel.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, issued a provisional notice in respect of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Mahua Maji – a co-petitioner in the same petition -- taking exception to some statements made by Maji.
“Respondent no. 9 will have to explain her statements and conduct,” the bench clarified.
The petition, which seeks a time-bound investigation into allegations that chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions unilaterally, also calls for suspending the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls pending an independent inquiry. The INDIA bloc leaders have contended that the alleged exercise of collective powers by a single member of the ECI raises questions about compliance with the Constitution and the law governing the functioning of the three-member body.
Also read | Supreme Court flags 14 'defects' in Rahul Gandhi's petition against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
The plea was filed by Gandhi and other opposition leaders after the CJI declined to meet the Congress leader and party president Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, over their concerns regarding the SIR exercise and the functioning of the ECI. The CJI had instead indicated that their concerns could be raised through appropriate judicial proceedings.
Gandhi personally approached the Supreme Court registry on Monday to file the petition, joined by Kharge and leaders of other INDIA bloc parties in a show of opposition unity. The plea was initially held up after the registry flagged 14 defects, including a shortfall of ₹220 in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine petitioners.
The petitioners have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the validity of the SIR exercise in Bihar. Instead, they want the court to examine whether individual decisions taken during its implementation complied with constitutional and statutory safeguards governing the functioning of the ECI.
Also read | Inside the Opposition’s Supreme Court plea: Bulk objections, opaque election roll database
Referring to a report by The Indian Express that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to Kumar’s alleged unilateral decision-making on 14 occasions over 10 months, the petition seeks production of the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners on disputed decisions, including the June 2025 decision to undertake the SIR exercise.
The petition also seeks an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts and civil society members, to examine the poll panel’s decisions, policies, procedures and technical architecture relating to electronic voting machines.
Also read | ‘Incompatible with judicial propriety’: CJI to Kharge, Gandhi over request for meet on voters list
Among its other grievances, the plea questions the alleged modification of statutory Form 6 without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the centralised functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, and the exclusion of eligible voters without adequate notice, hearing or an effective mechanism for restoration.
The opposition leaders have argued that the independence and collective functioning of the ECI are integral to free and fair elections, a feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. They have sought appropriate action against those responsible for any breach of the constitutional or statutory provisions governing electoral-roll preparation and revision.
The petition, filed through advocate S Prasanna, names the ECI, Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi as respondents.