INDIA bloc moves Supreme Court, seeks ECI records on electoral roll revision

Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders on Monday, October 12, moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, seeking a suspension of the exercise across all states pending adjudication of their petition.

The petition seeks disclosure of the ECI's internal records relating to the SIR, judicial scrutiny of decisions taken by the poll panel, an independent audit of voter deletions and directions to ensure that no voter's name is removed without notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

The other petitioners include Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress leader Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, CPI(M) leader MA Baby, CPI leader D Raja, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Mahua Majhi, NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader Supriya Sule and Indian Union Muslim League leader ET Mohammed Basheer.

The petition names the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents. It was filed through advocate-on-record S Prasanna.

The petition alleges that the CEC exercised the Election Commission's collective powers without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. It relies on an Indian Express investigation published on September 23, which reported that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions taken under Kumar.

The petition states that the ECI's position is that its decisions were unanimous, while media reports based on records suggest otherwise. "The question can be answered only by examining the Commission's records," the plea states.

The petition argues that the issue goes beyond internal administrative procedure. "The issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure," it states.

The petition seeks the production of the ECI's files, minutes, notings and objections relating to disputed SIR decisions, along with access logs from the ECINET and ERONET electoral databases. It also seeks the complete file concerning the ECI's June 24, 2025 decision to launch the SIR exercise.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to examine whether the decisions comply 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 TN Seshan judgment. It seeks the quashing of decisions allegedly taken without lawful authority and appropriate action against those responsible for breaches, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The petition also seeks a direction that all SIR-related decisions be taken collectively and properly recorded in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act while the matter remains pending before the court.

Form 6 modification challenged

The petition challenges the ECI's July 2026 modification of online Form 6, which is used by people seeking to register as voters for the first time. The modified form requires applicants to declare whether their own names or those of their parents or grandparents appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll.

The petition argues that the additional declaration was introduced without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and seeks a direction that the online form conform to the existing rules unless they are amended.

According to copy 2, the petition refers to an RTI reply in which the ECI's First Appellate Authority recorded that no decision had been taken to begin a nationwide SIR in 2025. The plea says this "appears irreconcilable" with paragraph 10 of the ECI's June 24, 2025 order.

The petition also cites the centralised control of ECINET and ERONET databases by the ECI's IT division, arguing that it curtails the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers. "Such centralisation is ultra vires and subverts the decentralised architecture safeguarding free and fair elections," the plea states.

The Form 6 modification has been the subject of controversy after the ECI claimed in a September 26 press note that the additional declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court said on October 5 that it had not approved the modification because the issue had not come before it for adjudication.

The petition also seeks the constitution of a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit SIR-related voter deletions and access to electoral-roll databases, and to review Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) processes against global best practices.

It calls for booth-wise publication of deleted voters' names, the reasons for their deletion, and age- and gender-wise breakdowns. It also seeks a functional mechanism to restore deleted names and asks that eligible voters in Punjab and other poll-bound states be allowed to apply for inclusion until the last date for such applications.

The plea cites Punjab, where the draft electoral roll reportedly contained about 20.66 lakh fewer names, and raises concerns over bulk Form 7 objections, alleged forged names, the targeting of specific communities and women, and deletions without notice or a hearing.

The petition clarifies that it does not seek to reopen the Supreme Court's May 27 judgment upholding the SIR exercise, stating that its concern "is narrower and distinct".

Opposition march to Supreme Court

The petition was filed after Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders led a march towards the Supreme Court in Delhi on Monday as part of their campaign against the SIR exercise and their demand for Kumar's resignation.

The Opposition had initially planned for Gandhi to submit the petition himself. However, with the Supreme Court Registry about to close before the march reached its destination, the petition was filed through lawyers.

Addressing a press conference before the march, Gandhi said the protests against the CEC were part of a united Opposition campaign. "There are no parallel protests, there is one protest," Rahul said. He also called on Opposition parties and civil society groups to unite in what he described as a fight to protect the Constitution.

Rahul and Kharge had previously sought an appointment with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to submit a memorandum raising concerns about the SIR process, the functioning of the ECI and the alleged detention of protesters.

The CJI declined the request, stating that the issues raised were already pending before the Supreme Court. In his response, he said that discussing pending cases through an administrative meeting would contravene the principle of separation of powers.

The CJI also told the Opposition leaders that the Supreme Court was duty-bound to consider issues affecting citizens' rights on the judicial side. He wrote that "it would thus be more appropriate on your part to invoke the judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India, instead of submitting a memorandum on the administrative side".

The CJI had indicated that a petition filed by the Opposition leaders could be considered along with other pending matters concerning the SIR exercise.

The petition comes amid protests by Opposition parties alleging irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls and demanding Kumar's resignation. The ECI and the BJP have rejected allegations that the revision is intended to benefit the ruling party.

The protests have also seen heavy security deployment and the detention of thousands of demonstrators in Delhi over the preceding weekend. The demonstrations followed a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), whose leaders were detained after arriving in Delhi to participate in the agitation.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear related matters concerning the SIR exercise on Tuesday, October 13.