The Supreme Court registry has flagged 14 defects in the INDIA bloc’s petition over alleged voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The plea has not yet been cleared for listing for a hearing.
The defects include missing or unsigned lawyer authorisations, unclear supporting documents and a court fee shortfall of Rs 220. The registry has also sought clarification on why individual Election Commissioners have been named as private respondents in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The objections concern filing requirements and do not amount to a judicial ruling on the petition’s merits.
WHAT DEFECTS HAS THE REGISTRY FLAGGED?
The registry has asked for a clear, legible copy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s identity card. It has also flagged missing or unsigned vakalatnamas for petitioners numbered 3 to 11. A vakalatnama authorises a lawyer to represent a petitioner.
The nine leaders concerned are Saugata Roy, Akhilesh Yadav, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Sanjay Raut, M A Baby, D Raja, Mahua Majhi, Supriya Sule and E T Mohammed Basheer.
The registry has sought clear copies of supporting documents, including digital copies on a pen drive of the Election Commission’s June 24, 2025, decision to initiate SIR and other records concerning voter deletions.
WHAT DOES THE PETITION SEEK?
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 10 other Opposition leaders filed the petition on Monday. It names the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents.
The plea seeks an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts and other eminent citizens, to audit electoral-roll deletions and modifications within a fixed timeframe.
It also seeks an interim suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise across states until the court decides the issues raised.
The petitioners want directions to ensure that no voter is removed without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. They have also sought to ensure that eligible voters in Punjab and other poll-bound states can apply for inclusion until the legally prescribed deadline.
Other demands include booth-wise publication of deleted voters’ names, the reasons for deletion and a breakdown by gender and age, along with a mechanism to restore eligible voters.
PLEA SEEKS EC RECORDS
The petition seeks files, agendas, minutes, internal notes and objections relating to SIR decisions. It also asks for relevant access logs from the ECINET and ERONET systems and the complete file concerning the June 24, 2025, decision.
The petitioners have asked the court to examine whether the decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and applicable judicial rulings.
The plea seeks appropriate action against officials found responsible for violations, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, wherever warranted.
It also seeks changes to the online Form 6 voter-registration process to bring it into line with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, unless those rules are lawfully amended.
PUNJAB DELETIONS CITED AS URGENT CONCERN
The petition cites Punjab to underline the urgency of the matter. It says the draft electoral roll published on August 13, 2026, reportedly showed a reduction of around 20.66 lakh names from an electorate of approximately 2.14 crore recorded in June that year.
The petitioners argue that the alleged irregularities raise concerns about electoral integrity and the rights of eligible citizens to register and vote.
FILING FOLLOWS CJI’S RESPONSE
The petition was filed after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting requested by Gandhi and Kharge on Sunday.
The leaders had sought to submit a memorandum raising concerns about the CEC, alleged arbitrary arrests of students, Metro station closures and train cancellations.
The CJI said a meeting on matters already pending before the Supreme Court would conflict with the separation of powers and principles of judicial propriety. He assured them that any petition would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with the law.
- Ends