Ten directions are sought from the Supreme Court, ranging from production of Election Commission records and an audit committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to an interim suspension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across all States.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The full prayers in Rahul Gandhi’s writ petition against the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the SIR of electoral rolls are now available, and they reach well beyond voter deletions. At the centre is a challenge to what the petition describes as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) exercising the Commission’s collective powers without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. These are the petitioners’ contentions, they are untested, and the ECI’s response is awaited. [Rahul Gandhi’s writ petition on SIR, Diary No. 64196/2026]
Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has filed the petition together with the Congress President’s nominee as Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, through Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna. Neither the Bench nor the listing date has been reported.
What the petition pleads
The petition says it does not seek to reopen the Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment on SIR, and describes its concern as narrower and distinct. Relying on Article 324, Section 18 of the 2023 Act and the T.N. Seshan ruling, it argues that the CEC does not hold a status superior to the other Commissioners, and that the issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure.
It cites a newspaper investigation of September 23, which it says reported that the two other Election Commissioners recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months to decisions of the CEC. It also points to a reply from the ECI’s First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, which recorded that no decision had been taken to start a nationwide SIR in 2025, and says this appears irreconcilable with paragraph 10 of the ECI’s June 24, 2025 order.
The ten directions: records and compliance
The first two directions seek production of ECI files, minutes, notings and the objections recorded by Election Commissioners on the disputed SIR decisions, along with ECINET and ERONET access logs, and the complete file recording the June 24, 2025 decision to launch SIR nationwide.
The third and fourth ask the Court to examine whether the decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the Constitution Bench ruling in T.N. Seshan, to quash any decision taken without lawful authority, and to direct action against those responsible for breaches, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The fifth asks that, until the case is decided, every SIR decision be taken and minuted under Section 18.
Form 6 and the audit committee
Under the sixth direction, online Form 6 would have to conform to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, unless the Rules are amended. The petition challenges a declaration added to online Form 6 in July 2026, which asks whether the applicant or relatives appeared on an earlier SIR roll, and argues that it was introduced without amending the 1960 Rules.
The seventh seeks a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit SIR deletions and access to electoral-roll databases, and to review EVM processes against global best practices.
Deletions and interim relief
The eighth direction would require booth-wise publication of deleted names with reasons and a gender and age breakdown, and a functional restoration mechanism. The ninth asks that no name be deleted without notice and hearing, and that eligible persons in Punjab and other poll-bound States be allowed to seek inclusion until the last date. The tenth is the interim prayer: suspension of SIR across all States.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Says It Did Not Adjudicate On Modified Form 6 In Bihar SIR Case
Data systems and Punjab
On data systems, the petition alleges that control of ECINET and ERONET by the ECI’s IT division curtails the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers, and calls this centralisation ultra vires. On Punjab, it says the draft roll showed about 20.66 lakh fewer names, and alleges bulk Form 7 objections, forged names, targeting of specific communities and women, and deletions without notice or hearing. These are allegations in the petition and have not been tested.
The other side of the record
The ECI maintains that its decisions were unanimous, and the petition argues that only an examination of the Commission’s records can settle the point. In a press note of September 26, the ECI said the additional Form 6 declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court. On October 5, the Supreme Court said it had not approved the modification, as the issue had never come before it. The petition alleges that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the declaration requirement. The Supreme Court has expressed no view on any of these contentions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi’s writ petition on SIR (Diary No. 64196/2026) against the Election Commission of India; respondents, Bench and listing date not reported.
Appearances: Filed through Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna.
