Rahul, Kharge move SC challenging electoral roll revision by EC

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge and other opposition leaders have moved the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the Election Commission of India is implementing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging procedural irregularities and seeking an independent audit of voter databases and deletions.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise across the country pending adjudication of the issues raised. It also seeks the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the implementation of the revision exercise and review the technical systems governing electoral rolls and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Internal ECI Decisions Questioned

The petitioners have raised questions over the alleged exercise of the Election Commission’s collective powers by the Chief Election Commissioner without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. They have also sought production of the records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide SIR, including files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the commissioners.

The plea contends that the Election Commission 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 report published by a newspaper on September 23, 2026, which stated that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months concerning decisions relating to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and access to electoral-roll data. It also acknowledges the Election Commission’s response that the reports presented only one aspect of the matter, that differences of opinion were normal in deliberative processes and that its decisions were unanimous. The petitioners have said the issue requires examination of the Commission’s official records to determine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with law.

Legality of Nationwide SIR Challenged

The petition has also questioned the existence of a formal decision authorising the nationwide SIR. It refers to responses received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, stating that an application seeking the files and notings concerning the decision to undertake the exercise was provided only the Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025. According to the petition, 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 have argued 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 the unanimous approval of the Commission. They have sought production of the complete file recording the decision to ascertain whether the nationwide exercise was lawfully authorised.

Concerns Over Form 6 Modification

The petition also questions the modification of the online Form 6 on the ECINET platform in July 2026 to include a declaration concerning the presence of the applicant or their relatives in an earlier SIR electoral roll. Form 6 is the prescribed form for applying for inclusion in electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The petition alleges that the additional declaration was introduced without a corresponding amendment to the applicable rules, potentially imposing an additional burden on eligible citizens, particularly first-time voters. It further refers to the Supreme Court’s oral clarification on October 5 in pending SIR proceedings that it had not approved the modified Form 6. The petitioners have sought a direction to ensure that the online form conforms to the form prescribed under the applicable rules unless the rules are lawfully amended.

Call for Technical Audit of Voter Databases

Raising concerns over the functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, the petition seeks an independent technical audit of access permissions, alterations to electoral records, deletions and mechanisms for restoring eligible voters. It alleges that the centralised functioning of the databases and the absence of an effective mechanism to reverse erroneous deletions could undermine the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.

Mass Voter Deletions and Restoration a Key Concern

The plea also flags concerns over the processing of objections seeking 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 are yet to be adjudicated.

The petition seeks 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 seeks an effective mechanism for restoring the names of eligible voters and a direction that no elector be deleted without notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The petition cites the draft electoral roll published in Punjab on August 13, 2026, which, according to the plea, reflected a reduction of approximately 20.66 lakh names from an electorate of about 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 and were required to produce documents within a month to remain on the rolls. The petition says the final electoral roll was scheduled to be published on October 12.

Petition Focuses on Implementation, Not Validity of SIR

The petitioners have argued that the absence of effective safeguards and a functional restoration mechanism could leave eligible citizens out of the electoral rolls ahead of forthcoming elections. 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. It acknowledges, however, that the Election Commission has maintained that the figure represented electors marked as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate at the draft stage and did not represent final deletions.

The petitioners have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the validity of the SIR itself, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on May 27, 2026, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India. Instead, they seek scrutiny of whether the safeguards laid down by the court and the applicable legal requirements are being followed during its implementation.

Independent Review of EVMs Sought

Apart from the 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. The petition has also sought preservation and production of the relevant records, examination of alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory provisions, and appropriate action against those responsible wherever warranted.

Petition Filed Following CJI’s Assurance

The plea has been filed following a written communication dated October 11 from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in response to a representation made by Rahul Gandhi and Kharge on October 10. According to the petition, the CJI had indicated that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing on October 13 and assured that any petition filed would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with law. The petitioners have sought consideration of their plea along with connected proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)