Read Rahul Gandhi's 10-point petition against Election Commission in Supreme Court

The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Election Commission’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision was constitutionally and legally valid. The leaders allege that eligible citizens were excluded from electoral rolls without adequate notice, hearing, or an effective restoration process. They also question the integrity and transparency of the electoral process.

A central issue is whether the Chief Election Commissioner exercised the Commission’s collective powers without the other Election Commissioners’ knowledge, approval, or concurrence. The petition also challenges an alleged nationwide SIR decision without a recorded Commission decision, changes to statutory Form 6, and the centralised ECINET and ERONET databases.

The petition seeks examination of the Commission’s records rather than asking the Court to accept every allegation immediately. It also raises concerns about alleged restrictions on peaceful demonstrations. The Court was told that similar matters were listed for hearing on Tuesday, 13.10.2026, and that this petition would be heard at the earliest opportunity.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an especially detailed exercise to review and update electoral rolls. Its purpose is to make the list of voters more accurate by checking existing entries, adding eligible citizens, and correcting or removing entries that do not belong. The source article identifies the SIR as the disputed process but does not explain its full operating procedure.

The petition focuses on how the revision was carried out. It alleges large-scale exclusions without adequate notice, a hearing, or an effective way to restore names. It also challenges the alleged unlawful modification of statutory Form 6, a form connected with voter registration, and questions the operation of ECINET and ERONET databases.

The importance of an SIR lies in its effect on who appears on the electoral roll. A properly conducted revision can improve accuracy, but disputed procedures can prevent eligible citizens from voting. The Supreme Court is being asked to examine whether this revision followed constitutional requirements, governing law, and proper Commission decision-making.

The dispute has both a political scale and an institutional dimension. The petition was filed by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, along with 10 other Opposition leaders. The other petitioners are described as political party leaders and/or Members of Parliament. They say they are acting to protect universal adult suffrage and a transparent electoral process.

The article also cites an investigation published by The Indian Express on 23 September 2026. It reported that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least fourteen occasions over ten months. Those objections reportedly concerned voter registration, deletion, restoration, and access to electoral-roll data.

The Election Commission responded that the reports showed only one part of the picture and that differences are normal in deliberative processes. It said its decisions were unanimous. The petition does not ask the Court to prejudge those competing claims. Instead, it seeks examination of the Commission’s records to determine whether decisions followed the Constitution, statute, and judicially declared law.

The Election Commission has constitutional responsibility for the superintendence, direction, and control of preparing electoral rolls and conducting elections. The Chief Election Commissioner leads the Commission, while the other Election Commissioners participate in its institutional work. The petition’s core concern is whether that structure was respected during the SIR.

It alleges that decisions and communications were issued in the Commission’s name without the knowledge or approval of the other Election Commissioners. It also alleges that no recorded Commission decision authorised the nationwide SIR. These claims matter because a decision attributed to the Commission may require proper institutional authorisation, not merely action by one officeholder.

The article does not provide the Court’s ruling on whether every major decision must be made collectively in the circumstances described. The Election Commission says its decisions were unanimous and that differences of opinion are normal. The petition therefore asks for the relevant records, leaving the Court to determine whether the constitutional and statutory requirements were followed.

An electoral roll determines which eligible citizens are recognised for voting purposes. If a person’s name is removed without adequate notice or a meaningful hearing, that citizen may be unable to vote even if legally eligible. The harm is especially serious when removals occur on a large scale or are difficult to detect before polling.

The petition alleges that electors were excluded without adequate notice, hearing, or an effective restoration mechanism. It also raises concerns about centralised and opaque ECINET and ERONET databases. Without a clear way to identify errors and restore names, affected citizens may struggle to correct the record in time.

The wider consequence is damage to confidence in a free and fair election. If many eligible voters are excluded, the electorate may not accurately reflect the people entitled to participate. The article does not say that any election result has been invalidated. It says the petition seeks safeguards for electoral integrity and judicial examination of the process.

The source article does not set out individual legal routes for correcting a deleted name. As a matter of established Indian electoral law, a voter can generally approach the relevant electoral registration authority through the prescribed claims, objections, or registration process. A person seeking inclusion or restoration may use the applicable voter-registration form and supporting documents.

If an administrative remedy fails, the person may challenge the decision before the appropriate appellate or constitutional forum. Depending on the issue and circumstances, this can include an appeal under election law or a writ petition in a High Court under Article 226. A petition under Article 32 may be available for enforcement of fundamental rights, though the Supreme Court decides whether that route is appropriate.

The petition itself is filed under Article 32 and asks for institutional relief concerning the SIR. It does not describe a specific individual’s deletion case or prescribe a restoration procedure. Voters should therefore check the applicable election authority’s current process and deadlines rather than rely only on the broader Supreme Court case.

Electoral rolls are the foundation for exercising the right to vote. They identify eligible citizens who can participate in elections. Universal adult suffrage means that every eligible adult citizen should have an equal opportunity to vote, regardless of political affiliation. If names are wrongly omitted, that constitutional guarantee cannot operate fully.

The petition links accurate rolls with a free, fair, transparent, and accountable electoral process. It alleges that large-scale exclusions, opaque databases, and inadequate restoration procedures could prevent eligible citizens from participating. The concern is not limited to one party because the right to vote belongs to every eligible citizen.

Rahul Gandhi and the other petitioners say protecting this guarantee is a public duty that transcends party politics. The Election Commission disputes the suggestion that its decisions lacked institutional agreement, saying they were unanimous. The Supreme Court’s examination of the records could clarify whether the SIR respected constitutional requirements and help determine the process’s future.