The INDIA bloc has asked the Supreme Court to examine how the Election Commission carried out the SIR exercise. The plea raises questions over voter deletions, internal decision-making and the integrity of electoral databases.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi stands next to Priyanka Gandhi, as opposition parties march to the Supreme Court to protest a controversial revision of voter lists that has sparked days of unrest. (Credits: REUTERS)
The INDIA bloc’s petition before the Supreme Court challenges the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), questioning the legality of key decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleged arbitrary voter deletions and the integrity of electoral databases.
The petition seeks scrutiny of whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar exercised powers without the knowledge or approval of the other two Election Commissioners. It also seeks access to official records, an independent audit of electoral-roll databases and an examination of procedures governing voter registration and deletion.
Significantly, the petition does not seek to overturn the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment upholding SIR. Instead, it questions whether the exercise was implemented lawfully and whether the decisions behind it followed the prescribed process.
Here are the 10 major takeaways from the petition.
CEC ACCUSED OF EXERCISING POWERS UNILATERALLY
The petition alleges that the Chief Election Commissioner took decisions without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
It cites a September 23, 2026, Indian Express report documenting objections reportedly raised by the two commissioners on at least 14 occasions over 10 months. These concerned voter registration, deletion and restoration, and access to electoral-roll data.
The Election Commission maintains that its decisions were unanimous and that differences of opinion are part of normal deliberations.
WAS NATIONWIDE SIR FORMALLY APPROVED?
The petition questions whether the decision to initiate nationwide SIR in 2025 was formally authorised by the full Election Commission.
An RTI application dated July 28, 2025, sought the relevant files and notings. According to the petition, the response provided only the June 24, 2025, order. A subsequent appeal reportedly recorded that no decision to initiate nationwide SIR had been taken until then, even though the order referred to a decision to conduct the exercise nationwide.
The petition also cites a September 26, 2026, press note in which the Commission claimed unanimous approval. It asks the Supreme Court to summon the original file documenting the decision.
TN SESHAN JUDGMENT CITED
The petition invokes the Supreme Court’s 1995 Constitution Bench judgment in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, arguing that the CEC does not have superior decision-making powers over other Election Commissioners.
It also cites Section 18 of the 2023 Act, which provides for unanimous decisions wherever possible and majority decisions otherwise. The petition argues that unilateral exercise of collective powers, if established, could raise questions about compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and the statutory framework.
CHANGES TO FORM 6 QUESTIONED
The petition challenges changes reportedly made to online Form 6 in July 2026. The modified form allegedly required applicants to declare whether they or their relatives appeared on electoral rolls prepared during earlier SIR exercises.
The petitioners argue that this requirement was introduced without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. They also cite an October 5, 2026, oral clarification by the Supreme Court, which they say indicated that the court had not approved the modified form.
The petition warns that the additional requirement could create barriers for first-time voters and other eligible applicants.
INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF ECINET AND ERONET SOUGHT
The petition seeks an independent audit of ECINET and ERONET, the Election Commission’s digital systems used in election-related processes.
It raises questions about access to voter records, audit trails, the ability of Electoral Registration Officers to reverse erroneous deletions and whether technical restrictions limit their statutory powers.
Citing reports that some deleted voters could not be restored because the software lacked a rollback facility, the petition argues that an internal technical review would not be sufficient.
DISPUTE OVER APPROXIMATELY 13 CRORE VOTER NAMES
The petition refers to a separate pending case concerning claims that approximately 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls across states and Union Territories during SIR.
The Election Commission maintains that the figure refers to voters marked absent, shifted, dead or duplicate at the draft stage, rather than final deletions.
The petition seeks scrutiny of the scale of exclusions and whether eligible voters have been wrongly removed.
BULK FORM 7 OBJECTIONS FLAGGED
The petition raises concerns about bulk Form 7 objections seeking voter deletions, including claims of forged names, false declarations and the targeting of particular communities and women.
It also questions whether voters received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before their names were removed. The petition seeks stronger safeguards, accountability for false declarations and effective mechanisms to restore eligible voters’ names.
PUNJAB CITED OVER DRAFT-ROLL REDUCTION
The petition cites Punjab as an example of the possible impact of the revision exercise. The draft electoral roll published on August 13, 2026, reportedly showed a reduction of 20.66 lakh names from approximately 2.14 crore voters recorded in June.
Another 12.80 lakh voters reportedly could not be mapped to rolls prepared after the 2003 revision and were required to submit documents. The final roll was scheduled for publication on October 12, 2026.
The petition argues that eligible voters could be excluded if they lack sufficient time or an effective remedy to establish their eligibility.
EVM POLICIES ALSO UNDER SCRUTINY
The petition seeks an independent examination of electronic voting machine (EVM) policies and procedures, including technical architecture, deployment and operational protocols. It also calls for comparison with international best practices.
This is a separate demand within the broader challenge concerning electoral integrity and the functioning of the Election Commission.
COMMITTEE HEADED BY RETIRED JUDGE SOUGHT
The petition seeks an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by technical experts and other eminent persons. The proposed committee would examine electoral-roll databases, SIR implementation and EVM-related processes.
The petition’s central argument is that the Election Commission’s decision-making, voter-registration procedures and digital infrastructure require independent scrutiny to establish whether the exercise complied with the Constitution and applicable laws.
- Ends