A fresh petition asks the Supreme Court to order the prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and to set up a judge-led SIT to investigate the alleged deletion of 13 crore names. It also seeks to void decisions said to have been taken without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners. The allegations, largely drawn from a news report, are untested.
New Delhi: A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and other officials over alleged violations of statutory duties in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India].
The writ petition, filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi, also seeks a declaration that decisions, guidelines and software modifications allegedly undertaken by the CEC without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners are unconstitutional and void.
Prosecution sought under the RP Act
The petitioner seeks directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides punishment for specified breaches of official duty in the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls, against the CEC, a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner, a Director General (IT) and other officials alleged to be responsible. The conduct complained of, according to the petition, includes the alleged unauthorised modification of Form 6, the centralisation of electoral-roll databases, a failure to restore eligible voters through the ECINet system, and the filing of about 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal challenging the inclusion of voters, purportedly in the name of the ECI.
The petition comes days after a report in The Indian Express stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions on decisions concerning the SIR, including changes to Form 6 and the management of electoral-roll data, said to have been taken without their knowledge or against their recommendations. These are the contents of a news report and of the petitioner’s allegations; they have not been established, and the ECI has, in response to the earlier reports, denied any rift and described its decisions as unanimous.
Decisions without majority concurrence
The plea asks the Court to declare void all decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications initiated, approved or implemented under the CEC without full Commission concurrence, or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners. It relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that where the CEC and the Election Commissioners differ, the matter is to be decided by the majority opinion.
On Form 6, the petition alleges, relying on the recorded objections, that the two Election Commissioners had objected in May 2026 to its alteration, one of them recording that the statutory form could not be amended without a corresponding amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, but that the form on the ECINet portal was nonetheless modified. The petition seeks quashing of those modifications and restoration of the statutory Form 6.
SIT and forensic audit sought
The petitioner has sought the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts, to conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases and to investigate the circumstances in which, according to the petition, about 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States and Union Territories during the SIR exercise. The proposed probe would also examine individual culpability for the alleged filing of the 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal.
The petition additionally seeks the preservation of server logs, databases, communications and metadata relating to ECINet and ERONet from October 1, 2025 onwards, pending investigation. It names the Union of India, the ECI, the CEC, the Cabinet Secretary and two named officials as respondents.
Why it matters
The petition is the latest, and among the most far-reaching, of a series of legal challenges arising from reports of internal disagreement within the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. It seeks not merely the reversal of specific decisions but the criminal prosecution of the CEC and officials, and a court-monitored forensic investigation into the integrity of the electoral-roll databases, placing squarely before the Court the questions of how the SIR was conducted and whether the multi-member Commission’s decision-making procedure was followed.
The legal architecture the petition invokes is significant. Section 18 of the 2023 Act codifies the multi-member character of the Commission by requiring differences to be resolved by majority; the petition’s case is that decisions taken without that concurrence are void. Section 32 of the RP Act, 1950, meanwhile, criminalises certain breaches of official duty in relation to electoral rolls; whether the conduct alleged falls within it, and whether the threshold for directing prosecution or a court-monitored SIT is met, are matters the Court would examine if it takes up the plea.
It bears emphasis that this is, at this stage, only a petition. It has been filed, not yet admitted or heard; no notice has issued, no court has recorded any finding, and the serious allegations it makes, against a constitutional functionary and named officials, remain untested and rest substantially on a news report whose account the ECI has disputed. The persons named are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and this report expresses no view on the truth of the allegations. What the Court makes of the plea, if and when it is listed, remains to be seen.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India [Diary No. 59734/2026]
Forum: Supreme Court of India (writ petition under Article 32)
Appearance: Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi (petitioner), through AoR Chand Qureshi.
Status: Petition filed; not yet listed or heard. Seeks prosecution under Section 32 RP Act, a declaration voiding decisions taken without majority concurrence, and an SIT/forensic audit into alleged SIR voter deletions. Allegations untested; ECI has denied any rift; respondents presumed innocent.
