Congress chief Kharge dons Batman mask during march to SC

Mallikarjun Kharge and opposition leaders held a “March for Democracy” in New Delhi on Monday. They marched toward the Supreme Court to challenge alleged voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The action followed street protests over the “vote chori” charge and the Chief Justice of India’s refusal to meet the leaders because the matter was sub judice.

The procession began near Barakhamba Road in Connaught Place. Police stopped it at Bhagwan Dass Road using barricades. Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Tejashwi Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav climbed onto a vehicle, and the procession moved forward after crossing the barricades. Supporters raised slogans and waved flags.

The leaders filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court. They also demanded an end to “vote chori,” the CEC’s resignation, a halt to the SIR exercise and a return to paper ballots. The march showed continued opposition coordination, but the article does not report the court’s next decision.

Kharge’s Batman mask was part of the political messaging surrounding the opposition’s protest. The article describes superhero masks as a trend in demonstrations around the world. It does not state that Kharge gave a specific explanation for wearing it, but the mask connected the march to Congress’s existing Batman-themed imagery.

In August, posters outside the Congress headquarters in Delhi called Rahul Gandhi the “real-life Batman.” They used the Batman description, “The silent guardian, a watchful protector.” Earlier this month, Gandhi also played along when asked whether he was Batman during an “Ask Me Anything” session. He replied that no one had ever seen him and Batman in the same room together.

The imagery gave the protest a recognizable and playful symbol. It linked Gandhi and Kharge to ideas of vigilance and protection while drawing attention online and on the streets. The article presents Batman as messaging, not as a formal Congress policy or campaign.

The march brought together leaders from Congress and several opposition parties. Those named included Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Mamata Banerjee, D Raja, M A Baby, Tejashwi Yadav and Supriya Sule. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Sanjay Raut, Dipankar Bhattacharya, E T Mohammed Basheer and AISA chief Neha Bora also joined. Three Congress chief ministers were present.

The leaders filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court against the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. They alleged large-scale voter deletions and other irregularities. Their action came a day after the CJI declined a meeting request from the leaders, saying the issue was sub judice.

Their wider demands included stopping the SIR exercise, ending what they called “vote chori,” seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and returning to paper ballots. The article does not state whether the court accepted or decided the petition.

The protest was large enough to draw hundreds of supporters and activists to central Delhi. Many gathered at the Barakhamba Road junction in Connaught Place before marching a few kilometres toward the Supreme Court. Supporters waved flags and raised slogans against the government, the CEC and the SIR exercise.

Politically, the march crossed party lines. Participants included Congress leaders, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee, CPI’s D Raja, CPI-M’s M A Baby, RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav and NCP-SCP leader Supriya Sule. Leaders from Shiv Sena-UBT, CPI-ML and IUML were also present. Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Telangana’s Congress chief ministers joined them.

The range of participants made the protest a coordinated opposition display. Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and AISA chief Neha Bora led the procession. The article describes the march as another show of strength, but gives no exact total for participating parties or supporters.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed process for reviewing and updating electoral rolls. In general, election authorities use such a revision to check voter records, add eligible names, remove ineligible or duplicate entries and correct errors. The source article identifies SIR as a revision of electoral rolls but does not explain its official procedure in detail.

The opposition parties are challenging the exercise because they allege large-scale voter deletions and irregularities. They say the process is connected to their broader “vote chori” charge. Their joint petition asks the Supreme Court to address the alleged problems. They also demanded that the SIR be halted.

The article does not report the court’s findings or confirm whether the allegations are proved. The immediate political issue is whether the revision is conducted fairly and whether eligible voters remain listed. The court’s response could determine what directions, if any, follow for the electoral-roll exercise.

When the Supreme Court receives a petition alleging voter deletions and election irregularities, it can first examine whether the case is maintainable and whether urgent intervention is justified. This is a general legal possibility, not a step reported in the article. The court may also ask the Election Commission or other parties to respond.

Depending on its assessment, the court could order records, seek explanations, hear further arguments or issue temporary directions. It might direct steps to protect voters while the claims are examined. It could also decline relief if the allegations are not established or if legal requirements are not met. The exact path depends on the petition and the court’s orders.

Here, opposition leaders filed a joint plea over alleged voter deletions and SIR irregularities. The CJI had declined a meeting with the LoPs, saying the matter was sub judice. The article does not report notice, a hearing date or any Supreme Court ruling after filing.

Accurate voter lists are essential because elections depend on eligible citizens being properly recorded. If names are wrongly removed, some people may be unable to vote. If records contain errors or ineligible entries, confidence in the result can suffer. Representative democracy therefore requires electoral rolls that are complete, current and fairly maintained.

An independent Election Commission is equally important because it oversees key election processes without favoring a political side. Independence supports equal treatment, transparent decisions and public trust. In this article, opposition leaders alleged voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR exercise, and demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Those claims directly concern confidence in election administration.

The article does not establish that the allegations are true. It shows, however, why disputes over voter lists become politically significant. The opposition filed a Supreme Court petition and demanded changes including a halt to SIR and a return to paper ballots. Court scrutiny may shape what happens next.