NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders challenging alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The court also issued notice to Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and others on a separate plea challenging their march to the Supreme Court over alleged electoral irregularities, observing that “nobody can browbeat judiciary” and that the court was “not sitting in ivory towers”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the responses of the ECI and other respondents would be sought and the petitions tagged with similar matters already pending before the court.
“We would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing. Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything. We are issuing notice. But about one of the petitioners, we will definitely entertain the issue,” the bench said.
The court clarified that the notice did not amount to a condemnation of any party. It also said the notice concerning one petitioner would be entertained provisionally, subject to an explanation of his conduct. The bench did not specify the petitioner it was referring to in this observation.
The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Centre and others on various pleas related to the Election Commission, including petitions filed by leaders such as Asaduddin Owaisi.
What Rahul Gandhi’s petition seeks
Gandhi, along with Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other INDIA bloc leaders, moved the Supreme Court on October 12, challenging the ECI’s decisions relating to the SIR of electoral rolls. The petition was registered as W.P. (C) No. 001351/2026 by the Supreme Court Registry on October 13, after initial procedural defects were addressed.
The petition alleges that the revision exercise has resulted in large-scale deletion of genuine voters, particularly among young people, migrants and marginalised communities. It seeks judicial scrutiny of whether the ECI’s decisions comply 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 the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.N. Seshan vs Union of India.
Gandhi has sought directions requiring the ECI to produce its complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections concerning disputed decisions related to the SIR, along with relevant ECINET and ERONET access logs and records relating to the June 24, 2025, decision to commence the revision exercise across the country.
The petition also seeks an examination of whether the disputed decisions were taken in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions governing the Election Commission.
Among the other reliefs sought are directions to ensure that every ECI decision concerning the SIR is properly recorded in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act and that online Form 6 conforms to the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The petition further seeks action against persons responsible for any breach of constitutional or statutory provisions governing the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, wherever warranted.
Demand for independent audit of voter deletions
Gandhi has also sought the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by technical experts and other eminent citizens to conduct an audit of deletions and modifications made during the SIR within a fixed timeframe.
The petition asks the authorities to publish booth-wise lists of all electors deleted during the exercise, along with the reasons for each deletion and a breakdown by gender and age. It also seeks an effective mechanism to restore the names of eligible voters who have been excluded from the electoral rolls.
Another key relief sought is a direction that no elector be deleted without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law. The petition also seeks to ensure that eligible voters in poll-bound states, including Punjab, are permitted to apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls.
The petitioners have alleged that the revision exercise risks excluding genuine voters under the guise of electoral roll updates. These allegations are subject to judicial consideration.
CJI had declined meeting request
The Supreme Court petition was filed a day after CJI Surya Kant declined a request from Gandhi and the INDIA bloc for a meeting to discuss alleged electoral irregularities, the SIR exercise and action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
In an email response on October 11, the CJI’s office told Gandhi and Kharge that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court and that they should approach the court through an appropriate petition if they sought judicial intervention.
Gandhi’s petition also seeks action concerning the functioning of the ECI and the legality of its decisions. He has sought appropriate directions to the competent authorities wherever violations of constitutional or statutory provisions are established.
The SIR-related petitions are now to be heard alongside other pending challenges before the Supreme Court.
Other matters before the court
During Thursday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the unconditional apology tendered by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan in a contempt matter. Mehta submitted that tendering an unconditional apology did not mean that actions could not be defended, adding that it was part of the procedure.
The bench told Mehta that it was not taking cognisance of media reports that authorities had tendered unconditional apologies before the court.
The contempt case concerns the alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s direction to ensure there was no “complete prohibition” on Metro and train services in Delhi following the October 10 protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
The apex court also agreed to examine a plea challenging the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.
