THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION, Rahul Gandhi along with ten other political party members, on Monday filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (‘SIR’) process, large scale voter-deletions, and restrictions on peaceful protests. The petitioners have prayed for, among other things, an interim suspension of the SIR exercise across all States and constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit electoral databases, including ECINET and ERONET, and review Electronic Voting Machines.
Protests on SIR Issues
The development comes amid protests and demonstrations across India seeking resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner (‘CEC’) Gyanesh Kumar over the conduct of SIR. Last month, an Indian Express investigation revealed that two of the three Election Commissioners raised objections fourteen times over ten months regarding decisions by the CEC, including the unlawful modification of the Form 6, centralised functioning of the ECINET and ERONET, and mass exclusion of electors without adequate notice or hearing for restoration.
Massive March of Democracy
Yesterday, Rahul Gandhi, Neha Bora and other opposition leaders took out a huge rally of INDIA block through central Delhi enlisting participation of a massive number of people ranging from 50-60,000 to over two lakh people. Described as ‘March for Democracy’ the rally from Connaught Circus to the Supreme Court was organised to sensitise the public about the danger to the foundation of democracy caused by denial of the right to vote to millions of people on account of implementation of SIR by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders sought direct judicial intervention in the issue.
CJI Surya Kant’s Refusal to Meet Rahul Gandhi
Gandhi, earlier, planned to meet CJI Surya Kant personally to discuss their demands for electoral reforms and the removal of CEC. However, CJI reportedly refused to meet with protesters on account of the issues sought to be raised already pending before the Court. CJI also conveyed that the Court could not interfere with the administrative functioning of the government but asked the opposition to approach the court legally.
PM Modi’s 2018 Visit to CJI’s Court
In this context it is pertinent to recall that Prime Minister Modi visited the Supreme Court in December 2018 on the invitation the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi to attend a dinner he was hosting on November 25 for judges from the BIMSTEC countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand. During that visit Modi, according to people present there in that dinner, Modi took Gogoi by surprise and asked to see Court No.1 where CJI presides. That was the room where key cases such as allegation of corruption in the Rafale deal involving the Union government were being adjudicated. The court had reserved judgment on the Rafale issue. No Prime Minister of India other than Modi ever visited Court No.1.
SC Notice on Gyanesh Kumar
In the context of the massive rally organised by INDIA block to march to Supreme Court to file a petition on the issue of irregularities committed by ECI while implementing SIR it is pertinent to note that on October 5 the Apex Court already issued notice on petitions seeking the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC and directions for his prosecution.
“Congress president and I wrote to the [chief justice], expressing our grave concern about the murder of Indian democracy and election fairness,” Gandhi reportedly said. “[He] responded to us and instructed us to file a petition.”
The ten political party members, aside Gandhi, who have filed the petition include President of the Indian National Congress Mallikarjun Kharge, Saugata Roy (Trinamool Congress), Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Tejashwi Prasad Yadav (RJD), Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena UBT), MA Baby (CPI(M)), D Raja (CPI), Mahua Majhi (JMM), Supriya Sule (NCP Sharad Pawar) and ET Muhammed Basheer (IUML).
Concerns and Directions Sought in the Petition
Relying on the investigation by IE, the petition under Article 32 alleges that the CEC exercised the Commission’s collective powers without knowledge or approval of the other Election Commissioners. It does not seek to reopen the Court’s May 2026 judgment in which it upheld the legal validity of SIR but has instead sought an inquiry whether the safeguards recognised by the Court in catena of judgments like Lal Babu Hussein (1995) and TN Seshan (1995) have been complied with in the implementation of the exercise.
Developments in Punjab, where the draft electoral roll published in August 2026 reportedly reflected a reduction of approximately 20.66 lakh names from the 2003 electorate with 12.80 lakh electors required to produce documents within a month to remain on the roll.
The petitioners have prayed for appropriate consideration of petition with pending petitions including Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1246/2026 and Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 401/2026.
The prayer includes directions for:
ECI to place on record files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the Election Commissioners; relevant ECINET and ERONET access logs; and file recording the decision dated 24 June 2025 to commence the SIR across the country
Examining whether the disputed decisions were taken in compliance 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 T.N. Seshan (1995)
Competent authorities to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for any breach of the constitutional or statutory provisions governing the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950
ECI to ensure that every decision relating to the SIR is taken and duly minuted in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act
ECI to ensure that the online Form 6 conforms to the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
An independent audit of the deletions, modifications, access to the electoral-roll databases, including ECINET and ERONET; and review of the decisions relating to the use and deployment of EVMs by an independent committee headed by a retired Judge of Supreme Court
Publication of booth-wise names of all electors deleted with the reasons and breakdown of deletions by gender and age, and an effective and functional mechanism for restoring the names found eligible
Ensuring no elector is deleted from the electoral roll without notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and to ensure that eligible persons going to the polls are permitted to seek inclusion in the electoral rolls until the last date permitted by law
Suspension of the ongoing SIR across the States pending consideration and adjudication of the issues raised in the Petition
The Court is set to hear related petitions against the SIR process on October 27. As per CJI’s suggestion, the Opposition's new plea may be grouped with those pending cases.
Case: Rahul Gandhi v Election Commission of India Diary No. 64196/2026