Should the Election Commission’s own working be examined from outside? A Supreme Court PIL seeks former CJI-led expert committee scrutiny of the Commission’s functioning and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, resting on written objections by two Election Commissioners, at least 14 in ten months according to a media report; the contentions are the petitioner’s and the Commission’s response is awaited.
New Delhi: An independent body to study institutional shortcomings in the Election Commission of India, the SIR of electoral rolls included, is what Advocate Vishal Tiwari asks for in a public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court. He proposes that a former Chief Justice of India or a former judge of the Supreme Court chair it, and he wants the Commission directed to enforce a prohibition on campaigning that uses religious tags or symbols, communal appeals or hate speech [PIL by Advocate Vishal Tiwari on the functioning of the Election Commission of India].
The petition has not been heard. Its case number, the Bench and the listing date are not available, and no response from the Election Commission has been recorded. Everything below is the petitioner’s case.
What the petition asks for
- An independent expert committee, headed by a former Chief Justice of India or a former Supreme Court judge, to examine institutional shortcomings in the Election Commission, within a prescribed timeframe. The petition proposes members with expertise in constitutional law, election administration, statistics, technology, cybersecurity and data protection.
- Examination by that committee of the SIR of electoral rolls, the handling of electoral data, the safeguards for including and deleting voters’ names, and the technical architecture and operating protocols of electronic voting machines.
- A direction to the Election Commission to enforce an absolute prohibition on campaigning that uses religious tags, religious symbols, communal appeals, sectarian identity or hate speech.
According to the petitioner, the plea is non-partisan and prospective. It seeks no finding against any political party or office-holder and does not contest the result of any election.
The media reports behind the plea
The petition begins with a media report of September 23, 2026. As reported, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written objections at least 14 times over ten months to decisions of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition describes these objections as covering changes to the statutory Form 6, centralisation of the electoral database, appeal filings in West Bengal that had not been approved, and work-allocation orders. In its account, the Commission acknowledged the dissent but called it “routine suggestions” and did not say who authorised the Form 6 changes. These are the petitioner’s allegations and have not been tested.
Two other media reports are also cited. One relates to an Election Commission affidavit stating that about 38.20 lakh appeals were filed by persons excluded from the West Bengal rolls, with only about 1.02 lakh disposed of, and that the Commission sought to raise the number of appellate tribunals from 19 to 42. The other reports that 2,70,313 electors in Maharashtra’s draft roll appeared as aged between 101 and 150 years because of a default birth-year entry.
Appeals data already before the Court
Other proceedings have already put the appeals figures before the Court. An affidavit filed before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana records the Election Commission’s statement that 38,20,683 appeals were filed against West Bengal roll changes, 1,02,231 were disposed of and 37,18,452 are pending, and that 34.13 lakh Form 6 applications for inclusion were filed between December 17, 2025 and August 7, 2026.
To decide the appeals, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court had constituted 19 tribunals, headed by former High Court chief justices and judges. The Bench asked the Commission what it was doing to speed up disposal and how many more tribunals were needed.
On August 24, 2026 the Court had called for detailed data on appeals pending before the tribunals and said the SIR process should be concluded, and all appeals decided, before the next parliamentary elections in 2029. More recently, on October 15, 2026, a Bench of the Chief Justice and Justice Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners on a writ petition by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of the INDIA bloc challenging the SIR, which also asks for an audit of deletions by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
Article 324 and the 2023 Act
The Election Commission holds the superintendence, direction and control of elections under Article 324 of the Constitution. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the Commission is to transact its business unanimously as far as possible, and any differences are resolved by majority. The petition contends that decisions were taken in the Commission’s name without its members’ concurrence, and that eligible voters risk exclusion without adequate safeguards. Whatever answer the Commission gives will be recorded when the petition is taken up.
What the petition invites the Court to do is look past individual SIR disputes to how the Commission takes and records its decisions, and to the safeguards around roll revision. No order has been reported, and the Court has expressed no view on its contentions. Whether the petition is entertained, and in what form, is for the Court to decide.
Case: Public interest litigation by Advocate Vishal Tiwari on the functioning of the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls [case number awaited]
Bench: Not yet listed, Supreme Court of India
Reported: October 24, 2026
Appearances: Not yet available