Rahul Gandhi’s plea not listed for hearing on October 13, faces routine clerical hurdles

A petition filed by Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi in the Supreme Court for a complete disclosure of records and decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the Special Intensive Revision and an independent probe into allegations of unilateral exercise of power by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, which led to voter deletions and modifications, is not listed for hearing on October 13.

The petition was filed on Monday (October 12, 2026) evening even as Mr. Gandhi led a march to the Supreme Court.

He and the other leaders across the Opposition political spectrum had come to the Supreme Court Registry to mark their presence as petitioners in the case.

The petition points out that it was filed pursuant to a written communication from the CJI on October 11 in response to a representation on behalf of Mr. Gandhi, who is the Leader of Opposition, and co-petitioner, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, on October 10 for permission to meet the top judge.

Anti-CEC protests LIVE updates on October 13, 2026

In his response to the Congress leaders’ representation, the CJI informed the two Opposition leaders that “incidentally, some matters highlighting similar issues are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday [October 13, 2026]”. These pending petitions are listed before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Kant himself.

The CJI had advised the Opposition leaders that they too could file a petition on October 12 between 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. or use the e-filing facility afforded by the apex court to litigants.

“You have my assurance that any such petition shall be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with law,” Chief Justice Kant had written to the Opposition leaders in his October 11 reply.

But the petition is still with the Supreme Court Registry due to routine clerical defects.

Under the Supreme Court Rules, when a petition or appeal has defects or is returned by the Registry, the petitioner or advocate is typically given a time window, such as 28 days or standard registry timelines depending on the specific filing chapter to cure the defects.

If defects are not cured within the initial timeframe and the matter remains in default for up to 90 days, a ‘condonation of defects and refiling’ application can be filed by the petitioners. The matter is routinely placed before a Judge-in-Chambers for orders. The Chamber Judge frequently grants a final extension of time, typically four to six weeks, to clear the objections.

If the defects are still not cured despite opportunities, matters are sometimes listed for dismissal or dismissed for non-prosecution/non-removal of defects. Petitioners routinely file applications for restoration, and the Supreme Court Registry generally adopts a lenient approach in restoring, provided sufficient cause or compliance is shown.

Once the petition is cured, it is numbered, and the Chief Justice of India, as master of the roster, on the administrative side, allots it to an appropriate Bench for preliminary hearing.

Mr. Gandhi’s petition reportedly features over 10 clerical defects, including a deficit in court fees and missing vakalatnamas for some of the petitioners. His legal team said these defects are “contemplated under the Supreme Court Rules and would be cured in due course”. They said the Registry has found no other faults in the substantive legal and constitutional arguments raised in the petition.

Meanwhile, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice is hearing another petition filed by Mr. Gandhi against an Allahabad High Court order, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to inquire into the allegations of disproportionate assets made by the private complainant, S. Vignesh Shishir.

The Congress leader had submitted in court that Mr. Shishir’s allegations amounted to a “witch-hunt” and the High Court had passed the order without even affording him a hearing. The apex court had previously halted the disproportionate assets proceedings while orally observing that courts must follow the principles of natural justice.