Opposition to Supreme Court: Probe Election Commission decisions, audit of SIR voter deletions

Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders on their way to the Supreme Court on Monday. (Express photo by Anil Sharma)

Seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in the alleged “unilateral and arbitrary exercise of the collective powers of the Election Commission of India”, Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge, and other leaders of the INDIA bloc parties filed a joint writ petition before the Supreme Court on the legitimacy of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

“The present petition arises from serious allegations concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India during the implementation of the SIR, including the alleged exercise of the Commission’s collective powers by the Chief Election Commissioner without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners; the absence of a recorded decision of the Commission authorising the nationwide SIR; the unlawful modification of the statutory Form 6 without amendment of the applicable Rules; the centralised and opaque functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases; and the large-scale exclusion of electors without adequate notice, hearing or an effective mechanism for restoration,” the plea argues.

The petition refers to “the alleged exercise of the Commission’s collective powers by the Chief Election Commissioner without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners; the absence of a recorded decision of the Commission authorising the nationwide SIR; the unlawful modification of the statutory Form 6 without amendment of the applicable Rules”.

The plea also cited The Indian Express’s investigative report of 23 September 2026, which reported that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of ten months. The petition records the Commission’s response that “the reports present only one part of the picture, that differences of opinion are normal in deliberative processes, and that its decisions were unanimous”.

INDIA alliance MPs with protestors near Bhagwandas Road as they march towards Supreme Court during their protest demanding resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi on Monday. (Express Photo by Anil Sharma)

The opposition plea said that it “does not seek to prejudge these competing positions” and that the “central question” of whether these decisions in question were “taken in accordance with the Constitution, the governing statute and the law declared by this Hon’ble Court” can only be answered upon examination of the relevant records of the Commission.

The petition states that it does not seek to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR as such. The SC, in a judgment on 27 May in ‘Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India’, stated that the EC had the power to conduct the SIR process.

The “Chalo Delhi” protest called by the Congress witnessed a major show of Opposition unity, with almost the entire top leadership of the INDIA bloc taking part (Express Photo by Abhinav Saha)

On Punjab, it states that the draft electoral roll published on 13 August 2026 “reportedly reflected a reduction of approximately 20.66 lakh names from the electorate of about 2.14 crore recorded in June 2026”. It adds that “the final electoral roll was scheduled for publication on 12 October 2026”.

Story continues below this ad

Among the prayers, the petitioners seek a direction to the Election Commission of India “to place on record the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the Election Commissioners in respect of each of the disputed decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls”.

They also seek to “constitute an independent committee headed by a retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court and assisted by technical experts and other citizens of eminence, to conduct, within a fixed time, an independent audit of the deletions and modifications made during the Special Intensive Revision”.

The plea also sought a direction to the EC “to publish, booth-wise, the names of all electors deleted during the Special Intensive Revision, together with the reasons for each deletion and a breakdown of deletions by gender and age”. They also sought “an interim direction suspending the ongoing SIR exercise across States of the Union, pending consideration and adjudication of the issues raised in the present petition”.

Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor at The Indian Express, where she leads the organization’s coverage of the Indian judiciary, constitutional law, and public policy. A law graduate with a B.A., LL.B (Hons) from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Apurva brings over a decade of specialized experience to her reporting. She is an authority on judicial appointments and the Supreme Court Collegium, providing critical analysis of the country’s legal landscape. Before joining The Indian Express in 2019, she honed her expertise at The Print and Mint. Follow her insights on the intersection of law and governance on Twitter ... Read More