Inside INDIA bloc’s Supreme Court petition: Rahul Gandhi seeks suspension of SIR and independent audit of voter rolls

The petition seeks the preservation and production of relevant records, an examination of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions, and appropriate action against those responsible wherever warranted.

Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge and other opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The petition alleges procedural irregularities and seeks an independent audit of voter databases and deletions.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea seeks a suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise across the country until the issues raised are adjudicated. It also calls for an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the revision process and review the technical systems governing electoral rolls and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Questions raised over ECI’s collective decision-making

The petitioners have questioned whether the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) exercised the Election Commission’s collective powers without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

They have sought the production of records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide SIR, including files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the commissioners.

The plea argues that the ECI must function as a multi-member constitutional body and that decisions concerning electoral rolls must comply with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The petition refers to a newspaper report published on September 23, 2026, which stated that the two Election Commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning decisions related to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and access to electoral-roll data.

It also acknowledges the ECI’s response that the reports presented only one aspect of the matter, differences of opinion were normal in deliberative processes and its decisions had been unanimous.

The petitioners have argued that the issue requires scrutiny of the Commission’s official records to establish whether its decisions were taken in accordance with the law.

Seeks records authorising nationwide SIR

The plea has also questioned whether a formal decision was taken to authorise the nationwide SIR exercise.

It refers to responses received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. According to the petition, an application seeking files and notings concerning the decision to undertake the exercise was provided only with the Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025.

The petition states that the First Appellate Authority subsequently recorded that the Commission had, until then, not taken a decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025.

The petitioners contend that this statement appears inconsistent with the Commission’s June 24, 2025, order and its press note dated September 26, 2026, which stated that the order had received the unanimous approval of the Commission.

They have sought the complete file recording the decision so that the legal authorisation for the nationwide exercise can be examined.

Challenges modification of Form 6

The petition also raises concerns over changes made to online Form 6 on the ECINET platform in July 2026.

Form 6 is the prescribed application for inclusion in electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. According to the plea, the form was modified to include a declaration about whether the applicant or their relatives appeared on an electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR exercise.

The petition alleges that the additional declaration was introduced without a corresponding amendment to the applicable rules, potentially placing an additional burden on eligible citizens, particularly first-time voters.

It also refers to the Supreme Court’s oral clarification on October 5 during the pending SIR proceedings, stating that the court had not approved the modified Form 6.

The petitioners have sought directions to ensure that the online form conforms to the version prescribed under the applicable rules unless those rules are lawfully amended.

Independent audit of electoral databases sought

Raising concerns over the functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, the petition seeks an independent technical audit of access permissions, changes to electoral records, deletions and mechanisms for restoring eligible voters.

It alleges that the centralised functioning of these databases, coupled with the absence of an effective mechanism to reverse erroneous deletions, could undermine the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.

The plea also flags concerns over the processing of objections seeking the deletion of names, including alleged bulk filing of Form 7 objections, the use of purportedly forged names and the targeting of particular communities and women. These allegations have been raised by the petitioners and have yet to be adjudicated.

The petition seeks the publication of booth-wise details of electors deleted during the SIR, along with the reasons for each deletion and a breakdown by age and gender.

It also calls for an effective mechanism to restore the names of eligible voters and seeks a direction that no elector be removed from the rolls without notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi, 10 other INDIA bloc leaders move Supreme Court against SIR, CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Punjab roll data cited in plea

The petition cites the draft electoral roll published in Punjab on August 13, 2026, which, according to the plea, recorded a reduction of approximately 20.66 lakh names from an electorate of around 2.14 crore recorded in June 2026.

It further states that approximately 12.80 lakh electors could not be mapped to electoral rolls prepared after the 2003 revision. These voters were required to produce documents within a month to remain on the rolls.

According to the petition, the final electoral roll was scheduled to be published on October 12.

The petitioners have argued that the lack of effective safeguards and a functioning restoration mechanism could result in eligible citizens being excluded from electoral rolls ahead of forthcoming elections.

ECI’s position on reported deletions

The plea also refers to another pending case alleging that approximately 13 crore names had been deleted from electoral rolls across states and Union Territories during the SIR.

However, it acknowledges the Election Commission’s position that the figure represented electors marked as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate at the draft stage and did not amount to final deletions.

The petitioners have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the validity of the SIR itself, which the Supreme Court upheld on May 27, 2026, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.

Instead, they seek judicial scrutiny of whether the safeguards laid down by the court and the applicable legal requirements are being followed during the exercise.

Also Read: ‘Not your domain...resign’: Congress under fire after offering unsolicited career advice to CJI Surya Kant; deletes post later

Seeks review of EVM systems and procedures

Beyond electoral-roll revision, the petition seeks an independent review of the decisions, policies, procedures and technical architecture governing the use and deployment of EVMs, with reference to global best practices.

It also seeks the preservation and production of relevant records, an examination of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions, and appropriate action against those responsible wherever warranted.

Plea filed after CJI’s communication

The petition was filed following written communication dated October 11 from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in response to a representation submitted by Rahul Gandhi and Kharge on October 10.

According to the plea, the CJI had indicated that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing on October 13. He also assured them that any petition filed would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with the law.

The petitioners have sought to have their plea considered alongside connected proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court.

(with ANI inputs)

Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in india news and world news on Zee News.