Supreme Court Issues Notice To ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar On Rahul Gandhi, INDIA Bloc Petition Against SIR Voter Deletions
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the Election Commission and all three Commissioners on the Opposition's challenge to the Special Intensive Revision
Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Election Commission of India on a challenge by 13 Opposition leaders to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and remarked, after lawyers referred to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's march to the Court, that "Nobody can browbeat judiciary. We are not sitting in ivory towers."
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on the writ petition filed by Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, which alleges large-scale deletion of voters and irregularities in the revision exercise. The Bench tagged the petition with the cases already pending before it.
While issuing notice, the Bench indicated that it would also take up the conduct of one of the petitioners. It said, "We are issuing notice."
The hearing comes against the backdrop of several protests in Delhi demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls.
The petition, registered as W.P.(C) No. 001351/2026, was filed on October 12 by Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders. The Supreme Court Registry registered it on October 13 after the initial procedural defects were cured.
Apart from Gandhi, the petitioners include Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Supriya Sule and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, among others.
Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi through a petition have told the Supreme Court that the Chief Election Commissioner allegedly exercised the "collective powers" of the Election Commission of India on his own during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and have asked the Court to call for the Commission's files, minutes and notings to test whether its decisions were lawfully taken.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, along with other party leaders and Members of Parliament, also questions the modification of the statutory Form 6, the design and operation 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 petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Prasanna S.
The petitioners state that they have approached the Court "in discharge of their public duties", adding that "the right to vote belongs to every eligible citizen irrespective of political affiliation, and its protection is a constitutional imperative that transcends party politics."
The petitioners acknowledge the Supreme Court's judgment of May 27, 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, which upheld the validity of the SIR.
They state expressly that they are not seeking to revisit that ruling, "The present Petition does not seek to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR as such. Its concern is narrower and distinct: whether the safeguards recognised by this Hon'ble Court, and the requirement that the Election Commission act as a collective constitutional institution, have actually been complied with in the implementation of the exercise."
As per the petition, "The validity of the SIR does not dispense with the requirement that each decision taken in its implementation must conform to the Constitution, the governing statutes and the applicable Rules."
Invoking Articles 14, 21 and 326 of the Constitution and Sections 21 to 23 of the 1950 Act, the petition submits that "the deletion of an elector already on the electoral roll must be accompanied by the safeguards of notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing recognised by this Hon'ble Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer."
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs Election Commission of India