A petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders against alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) will not be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the registry flagged 14 defects, including a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine of the 11 petitioners.
The petitioners’ legal team requested that the matter be listed on Wednesday after the defects are cured.
The registry objections could thus delay the Opposition leaders’ plea seeking an independent, time-bound inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and suspension of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls pending the inquiry. This plea was otherwise expected to be considered alongside pending petitions concerning the protests in Delhi demanding Kumar’s resignation.
Also read: INDIA bloc, led by Rahul Gandhi, files petition in Supreme Court over SIR voter deletions
Nine petitioners yet to submit vakalatnamas
Among those whose vakalatnamas are missing are Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.
The registry also raised a query as to why “private parties” have been arrayed as respondents in a writ petition which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. To be sure, this query pertains to naming all three election commissioners as respondents in the petition, in addition to arraying ECI as the first respondent.
The filing came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively, but indicated that their concerns could be raised through judicial proceedings and assured an expeditious hearing if they approached the court.
Opposition leaders file plea after protest march
Gandhi on Monday evening personally appeared at the Supreme Court to file the petition, joined by Kharge and nine other opposition leaders in a show of opposition unity over the electoral roll revision exercise and the alleged unilateral functioning of the poll panel.
The legal move followed a march, billed by the Opposition as a “March for Democracy”, which was stopped by police barricades on Bhagwan Dass Road, around 600 metres from the Supreme Court. The mobilisation came amid heightened tensions over the SIR and demands for the resignation of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Also read: Lawyers rally behind INDIA bloc's anti-CEC stir, join oppn march in large numbers | WATCH
What the petition seeks
The petition, filed through advocate S Prasanna, seeks an independent, time-bound investigation into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Kumar, including the June 2025 decision to undertake the SIR. It names the ECI, Kumar and the two other election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, as respondents.
The Opposition leaders said they have approached the top court in discharge of their public duties to “protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage” and to ensure the electoral process remains free, fair, transparent and accountable.
The petitioners said that they do not seek to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR, but raised concerns whether the safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court, and the requirement that ECI act as a collective constitutional institution have actually been complied with in the implementation of the exercise.
Also read: INDIA bloc stirring non-existing issues, people will reject theatrics: Keshav Prasad Maurya
Referring to Indian Express report indicating that two election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objected to the unilateral decision-making by CEC on 14 occasions in 10 months, the petition demanded the top court to call for the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners in respect of each of the disputed decisions, including the June 2025 decision to conduct SIR.
“The reported exercise of collective powers by a single member, if established, would raise a substantial question concerning compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. The issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure. It concerns the lawful exercise of constitutional authority by the institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of election,” the petition said.