Tuesday’s cause list ties the joint challenge by Rahul Gandhi and leaders of 12 Opposition parties to the lead quo warranto plea against the CEC, as the Supreme Court takes up how the Election Commission takes decisions. Notices have been served individually on CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners S.S. Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
New Delhi: A joint writ petition by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and leaders of 12 Opposition parties, questioning how the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been functioning during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27. Notices have been served individually on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Dr. S.S. Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi. [Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors.]
Numbered W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026, the petition appears as a connected matter (item 47.5) before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. It is listed along with the lead petition of Rakesh Kumar Singh, which seeks a writ of quo warranto against the CEC.
What the Opposition petition asks
The petition was filed on October 12 through Advocate-on-Record S. Prasanna. Among those who have signed it are Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut. It asks the Court to call for the Commission’s files, minutes and notings to test whether its decisions were lawfully taken, and to examine whether the CEC exercised the Commission’s collective powers alone during the SIR.
The petitioners also challenge the modification of the statutory Form 6, the design and operation of the ECINet and ERONet electoral-roll databases, and the exclusion of electors without adequate notice, hearing or a mechanism for restoration. Among the reliefs sought are an independent audit of deletions by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and booth-wise publication of deleted voters with reasons. The petition says it does not seek to reopen the validity of the SIR, which the Supreme Court upheld on May 27, 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.
These are the petitioners’ contentions. They are yet to be tested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice To ECI On INDIA Bloc SIR Petition, CJI Flags One Petitioner’s Conduct
Notice, and a remark from the Bench
On October 15, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the ECI, the CEC and both Election Commissioners. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioners. After lawyers referred to Gandhi’s march to the Court, the Bench remarked, “Nobody can browbeat judiciary. We are not sitting in ivory towers.” It also said it would ask one of the petitioners about his conduct, without naming him.
The ECI’s stand
The ECI has filed a short affidavit in the lead case, denying that the CEC acted unilaterally. It says the three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026, were all issued on unanimous decisions, that notes recorded on file by a Commissioner are not decisions of the Commission, and that in urgent matters Commissioners give their approval electronically, with the approval recorded on file later. It also says it never amended Form 6, since only the Central Government can do so, and that the petition rests on a newspaper report, which is not evidence. The ECI has sought time to file a detailed reply.
Connected petitions listed together
The cause list tags these petitions as connected matters under item 47:
47.1: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026 (PIL), for admission
47.2: Human Justice Organization v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1261/2026 (PIL), for admission
47.3: Priya Mishra and Anr. v. Union of India through the Chief Election Commissioner of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1291/2026 (PIL), for admission
47.4: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1356/2026 (PIL), for admission
47.5: Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026
Background
The petitions follow an Indian Express report that 14 SIR-related decisions were taken in the ECI’s name despite written objections recorded by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. On October 5, the Court issued notice on Rakesh Kumar Singh’s plea but declined to suspend the CEC, saying it first needed “authentic information.” The CJI had then said, “If there is anything wrong with the decisions, we can always annul them.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors. (with connected matters)
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026 (item 47.5)
Lead matter: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026
Bench: Led by CJI Surya Kant
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2026
Advocates-on-Record (per cause list): S. Prasanna for Rahul Gandhi and Ors.; Chand Qureshi for Shailendra Mani Tripathi; Rashid N. Azam for Human Justice Organization; Shiv Sagar Tiwari for Priya Mishra and Anr.; Lzafeer Ahmad B. F. for Asaduddin Owaisi; Prateek Kumar for respondent no. 2 in item 47.1