Whom did the Chief Justice mean? Notice has gone to the Election Commission on the INDIA Bloc SIR Petition, and the Supreme Court said it would also ask one of the petitioners about his conduct, without saying who.
New Delhi: A challenge by Opposition leaders to decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has drawn notice from the Supreme Court. On Thursday, October 15, the Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the other Election Commissioners on the writ petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and leaders of 11 other Opposition parties [Rahul Gandhi and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others].
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard the matter, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners. The petition, filed on October 12 through Advocate-on-Record S. Prasanna, is registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1351 of 2026.
The remark from the Bench
In issuing notice, the Bench called for the responses of the Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Just before the hearing closed, CJI Surya Kant spoke of one of the petitioners, without naming him:
“We would also ask one of the petitioners about his conduct.”
Kapil Sibal responded, “Very well mylord.” Which petitioner the Court had in mind, and what conduct it meant, was not stated in open court. The question is expected to be taken up when the matter is next heard.
What the petition asks the Court to examine
The petition challenges how the Commission has taken decisions during the SIR, among them voter deletions, changes to electoral databases and the modification of Form 6, the form used to register as a voter. The Court is asked to examine whether those decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in the T.N. Seshan case.
The reliefs sought include production of the Commission’s files and minutes; an independent audit of deletions by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge; booth-wise publication of deleted voters with the reasons for deletion; a direction that no elector be deleted without notice and a hearing; conformity of the online Form 6 with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; and, in the interim, suspension of the SIR across States.
The petitioners and the respondents
Besides Rahul Gandhi and Kharge, the petitioners include Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, NCP (SP) leader Supriya Sule, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, among others. The respondents are the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners.
From filing to listing
The petition was filed on October 12 as Diary No. 64196 of 2026. That day the Supreme Court Registry recorded 14 office objections, among them a shortfall of Rs 220 in court fee and missing Vakalatnamas for several petitioners, which had to be cured before the matter could be listed. Once registered, it was listed for Thursday before the Bench led by the Chief Justice.
The case joins a crowded SIR docket. On October 5, a Bench led by the Chief Justice issued notice, without interim relief, on a petition by Rakesh Kumar Singh alleging that decisions were taken without the approval of Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi. The Court has also advanced to October 28 the hearing of an application against the ECI direction that voters deleted from Delhi’s draft rolls apply afresh through Form 6, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has separately challenged the manner in which the SIR is being conducted.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Registry Flags 14 Defects In Rahul Gandhi’s SIR Petition, Notes Rs 220 Fee Shortfall
Where the Commission stands
The Election Commission has not yet filed its reply in this petition. In public, it has maintained that decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. The allegations in the petition are the petitioners’ contentions and are yet to be tested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits. The next date of hearing and any order on the prayer for interim suspension were not available at the time of writing.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026 (Diary No. 64196/2026)
Bench: Led by CJI Surya Kant
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for the petitioners; Advocate-on-Record S. Prasanna