SC flags 14 defects in Rahul Gandhi's petition seeking halt to SIR, audit of voter deletions

The Supreme Court registry on Monday flagged 14 procedural defects in a joint petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, even as the Opposition sought an immediate suspension of the exercise and an independent audit of voter deletions.

Among the defects identified were missing authorisations from nine petitioners, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's identity card and a shortfall of Rs 220 in court fees. The objections were raised after the petition was filed in the apex court following a massive Opposition demonstration in central Delhi.

The petition, containing 10 principal requests, challenges the manner in which the Election Commission of India (ECI) has conducted the revision exercise and seeks judicial scrutiny of decisions concerning voter registration, deletion and restoration.

The registry's objections are procedural in nature and do not amount to a judicial determination of the allegations made against the Election Commission. The defects will have to be addressed before the petition can proceed in accordance with the court's filing requirements.

𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀

The petition was filed through advocate S Prasanna on Monday as Gandhi and other Opposition leaders marched towards the Supreme Court to protest alleged electoral irregularities and large-scale deletion of voters' names.

According to the registry's scrutiny, the filing contained 14 defects, including the absence of authorisation documents from nine petitioners.

It also noted that the photocopy of Kharge's identity card was illegible and that the requisite court fee was short by Rs 220.

The objections introduced a procedural hurdle to the Opposition's legal challenge, which seeks extensive directions against the Election Commission and its senior officials.

The petition has been listed as Rahul Gandhi v Election Commission of India and names the poll panel, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents.

The filing followed a communication from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who had declined a request by Gandhi and Kharge for a meeting, citing the fact that matters concerning the electoral process were already before the court. The Chief Justice indicated that the leaders could seek judicial intervention through the appropriate legal procedure.

𝗦𝘂𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗜𝗥 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁

One of the principal demands in the petition is an interim direction suspending the ongoing SIR until the Supreme Court examines the legality of the decisions and procedures challenged by the Opposition.

The petitioners have alleged that the revision process has resulted in the exclusion of eligible voters without adequate procedural safeguards, including proper notice, opportunities for hearings and effective mechanisms for restoring deleted names.

They have argued that the exercise must comply with constitutional requirements and the statutory framework governing electoral registration.

The petition does not seek to overturn the Supreme Court's earlier judgment upholding the SIR exercise. Instead, it questions whether the Election Commission's subsequent decisions and implementation procedures complied with the law.

The Opposition has also sought directions to prevent electoral authorities from deleting names without following the prescribed procedure.

𝗘𝗖'𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱

The petition raises questions about whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar exercised powers belonging collectively to the three-member Election Commission without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

It seeks disclosure of complete files, agendas, meeting minutes, objections, internal correspondence and file notings relating to the decision to initiate the SIR on June 24, 2025.

The petitioners have also demanded access to relevant records from ECINET and ERONET, the digital systems used for electoral administration.

They have asked the Supreme Court to examine whether the disputed decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the principles laid down in the T N Seshan v Union of India judgment.

The petition refers to reports suggesting that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months on matters involving electoral registration, deletion, restoration and access to electoral databases.

The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were unanimous and that differences during deliberations were part of its normal decision-making process.

The Opposition has sought the setting aside of decisions found to have been taken without proper legal authority.

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱

Another major demand concerns the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and comprising technical experts and eminent citizens.

The proposed committee would examine voter deletions and modifications made during the SIR, including changes recorded in the Commission's digital electoral databases.

The petitioners have sought scrutiny of the technical architecture, access controls, policies and procedures governing electoral roll management.

The committee would also be tasked with examining the operational protocols and technical systems associated with electronic voting machines.

The Opposition has asked that the audit be completed within a stipulated period and that the findings be placed before the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argue that an independent examination is necessary to establish whether the revision process has been conducted transparently and whether eligible voters have been improperly excluded.

𝗦𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

The petition seeks a direction prohibiting the removal of any elector's name without legally prescribed notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

It also demands publication of booth-wise details of deleted voters, including the reasons for removal and age-wise and gender-wise classifications.

The Opposition has called for an effective mechanism to restore the names of eligible voters who may have been wrongly excluded during the revision.

The petitioners have questioned changes reportedly introduced to the online version of Form 6 in July 2026, including requirements concerning applicants' or their relatives' presence in earlier electoral rolls.

They contend that additional requirements cannot be introduced without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, through the prescribed legal process.

The plea also seeks action against officials found responsible for violations of electoral registration procedures, including proceedings under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, wherever applicable.

𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗷𝗮𝗯 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱

The Opposition's challenge comes against the backdrop of substantial changes in electoral rolls following the SIR in several states.

Punjab's final electoral roll, published on Monday, recorded 2.01 crore voters, a decline of more than 13.60 lakh, or 6.33%, from the 2.14 crore electors registered before the revision.

However, the final figure represented an increase of more than 7.06 lakh electors over the draft roll published in August.

The Election Commission attributed the reduction to deaths, permanent relocation, absent voters and duplicate entries, while maintaining that verification and claims-and-objections procedures had been followed.

The Opposition has argued that large-scale changes to electoral rolls require greater transparency and stronger safeguards to ensure that eligible citizens are not deprived of their voting rights.

𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴

The petition was filed amid heightened security in central Delhi as Opposition leaders and supporters participated in a 'March for Democracy' towards the Supreme Court.

The march encountered police barricades on Bhagwan Dass Road, approximately 600 metres from the court, before the leaders subsequently reached the apex court premises.

Besides Gandhi and Kharge, the petitioners include Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, CPI general secretary D Raja, JMM MP Mahua Majhi, NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule and IUML MP E T Mohammed Basheer.

The demonstration formed part of the INDIA bloc's campaign against alleged electoral irregularities and its demand for greater accountability from the Election Commission.

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to issue appropriate directions to safeguard electoral rights and ensure transparency in the revision process.

However, the registry's identification of 14 filing defects means the petitioners must first address procedural deficiencies, including missing authorisations and the court fee shortfall, before the legal challenge can move forward.

The substantive allegations concerning the Election Commission's decisions, voter deletions and the SIR process remain to be judicially examined.