The Supreme Court sought the Election Commission's response to an Opposition petition challenging electoral roll revisions. It also warned political leaders against attempting to pressure the judiciary through protests or public statements.
Newdelhi,Oct 15, 2026 19:10 IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission and its chief, Gyanesh Kumar, to respond to a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 other Opposition leaders alleging large-scale deletion of voters and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
The court also took strong note of claims that Gandhi and others had attempted to pressure the judiciary by holding a march on October 12. It issued notices to Gandhi and several other Opposition leaders over the march.
“Nobody can browbeat us,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, adding that the bench was aware of developments and statements made inside and outside the courtroom.
“We will ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing,” the CJI said without naming anyone.
The observation came after a state unit of the Congress recently sought the CJI's resignation while commenting on his statement that law and order fell within the executive's domain.
“We are not sitting in ivory towers. We know what statements they are making outside and what they are saying in court. We know everything,” the CJI said. He was heading a bench that also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, according to PTI.
The bench issued notices to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, seeking their responses to the petition.
Apart from Gandhi, the petitioners include Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) leader Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena-UBT leader Sanjay Raut and Communist Party of India leader D Raja, among others.
When the petition was taken up in a packed courtroom, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi began his submissions by saying the case concerned collective decision-making by the Election Commission and changes made to Form 6. Form 6 is used by an eligible person to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal simultaneously told the bench that he was appearing for Gandhi, prompting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ask who was representing the Congress leader in the case.
The petition has sought an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by technical experts and other prominent citizens. It has asked that the committee conduct, within a fixed period, an independent audit of deletions and changes made during the Special Intensive Revision.
It has also sought directions to ensure that no voter's name is deleted from the electoral rolls without notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard under the law. The petitioners have asked the court to ensure that eligible people in Punjab and other poll-bound states are allowed to apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls until the last date permitted by law.
“Issue an interim direction suspending the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across the states, pending consideration and adjudication of the issues raised in the present petition, in the interests of protecting the rights of eligible electors and preserving the integrity of the electoral process,” the petition said.
The Supreme Court also dealt with petitions concerning protests, alleged assaults on journalists and lawyers, and the revision of electoral rolls. It heard separate petitions concerning the October 12 march by Gandhi and other leaders to the Supreme Court and the removal of Jantar Mantar's status as a designated protest site in Delhi.
The court issued notices to Gandhi, Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mahua Moitra, the Congress and others on a petition challenging the October 12 march.
The bench also issued notices to the Election Commission and others on a petition filed by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeking to set aside the Special Intensive Revision. The petition cited a report in The Indian Express claiming that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi differed while taking key decisions.
On October 12, protests over the alleged “vote theft” reached the Supreme Court. Opposition leaders, activists and members of civil society held a “March for Democracy” and filed a joint petition against the Special Intensive Revision and alleged electoral irregularities.
During the hearing, Mehta referred to the unconditional apology submitted by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in a contempt case. He said an unconditional apology did not mean that the actions in question could not be defended and that such an apology was part of the procedure.
The bench told Mehta that it was not taking note of media reports that authorities had tendered unconditional apologies before the court.
“Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter all other facts and arguments are presented. This is mandatorily followed in every contempt petition,” a statement issued by the Press Information Bureau said.
The contempt case concerned an alleged violation of the Supreme Court's direction to ensure there was no “complete prohibition” on Metro and train services in Delhi following the October 10 protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party.
Delhi has witnessed several protests demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner over alleged irregularities in the electoral roll revision. The Supreme Court has now sought responses from the Election Commission and its commissioners on the Opposition leaders' petition, while also issuing notices over the October 12 march.
- Ends