The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra SIR, but declined to extend the claims and objections deadline or restrain the final roll without first hearing the Commission.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, while declining to extend the claims and objections date or stop the publication of the final roll without hearing the Commission [Arun Anandagiri v. Election Commission of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1330 of 2026 on October 26, 2026, and listed it for November 5, 2026. The petitioner’s figures and contentions below are allegations and submissions made in court; the ECI’s response is awaited and the Court has recorded no finding on them.
How the case reached here
The petition was earlier listed for October 26, when the Court said that matters on the SIR cannot be generalised and that it would look at the issue state by state, and it declined to club it with the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders. The Bombay High Court had earlier declined interim relief against deletions in the Maharashtra exercise, saying that the Supreme Court should hear the matter first.
What the petitioner argued
Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, for the petitioner, submitted that nearly 33 percent, or about three crore, of the State’s roughly nine crore voters were struck off after the draft rolls were published, and that 1.22 crore voters were deleted on the ground of “logical discrepancy”. He submitted that in Pune and Mumbai about 40 percent of voters are missing from the rolls, many of whom had been relocated during redevelopment projects and were deleted as “person not found”.
Datar further submitted that deleted voters are being asked to file Form 6, which is meant for first-time voters and requires a declaration that the applicant has not voted before, so that filing it could expose a person who has voted earlier to prosecution. He referred to an assurance given before the Delhi High Court that deleted voters who file Form 6 would not be prosecuted, argued that this does not solve the problem, and sought a separate form for deleted voters.
He also asked the Court to extend the claims and objections date, pointing out that it was the last day, and to stop the ECI from finalising the roll, due on November 6, noting that Maharashtra has no immediate election and that restoring three crore voters would take time.
What the Court said
On the concern about prosecution, the Chief Justice assured the petitioner that no one would be prosecuted for filing the form.
Nobody will be prosecuted.
The Bench was reluctant to extend the claims and objections date without hearing the ECI. Justice Bagchi asked when the last date was, and the Chief Justice noted that the Court had already extended the dates for SIR exercises in other States. No ex parte order was passed, and the Court issued notice on the writ petition.
Why the order matters
The Court’s assurance on Form 6 addresses one specific fear raised by the petitioner, that a deleted voter could face prosecution for a declaration made while trying to return to the roll. It does not decide whether the deletions were justified, which is the question on which the ECI has yet to respond.
By issuing notice but holding back interim relief, the Bench has kept both sides’ positions open until November 5. The petitioner says the timeline leaves little room for deleted voters to be restored, while the Court has indicated that it wants to hear the Commission before disturbing the schedule. The ECI’s position has not been reported at this stage.
Case Title: Arun Anandagiri v. Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No. 1330 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar for the petitioner