Rahul Gandhi, INDIA bloc leaders move SC against EC, seek audit of SIR deletions

Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders have asked the Supreme Court to examine the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls. They want the court to test whether voter deletions and related decisions followed the law. They also seek an interim suspension of the exercise while the court considers their concerns.

The petition asks the Election Commission to disclose files, meeting minutes, notes, objections by commissioners, and online portal access logs. It also seeks booth-wise lists of deleted voters, deletion reasons, and age and gender data. An independent committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge would audit deletions and modifications.

The petition does not seek to reopen the Supreme Court’s May judgment upholding SIR’s legality. Instead, it challenges implementation and decision-making. The leaders filed it after Chief Justice Surya Kant declined their meeting request, saying similar matters were already pending and they could use the judicial process.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed review of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to check who should remain listed, add eligible people, and remove entries considered inaccurate, duplicated, or otherwise ineligible. The article focuses on the Election Commission’s nationwide exercise launched after its June 24, 2025 decision.

The revision can change the voter list through deletions, modifications, and new registrations. The petition specifically challenges July changes to online Form 6, which is used by first-time voters. Applicants must declare whether they or relatives appeared on rolls created after the previous SIR in 2002. Critics say this may make registration harder for families absent from those older rolls.

The Supreme Court has already upheld SIR’s legality, according to the article. The new petition instead contests how the exercise is being carried out, including the evidence supporting deletions, the decision-making process, and compliance with existing electoral-registration rules.

The most specific internal concern is that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected 14 times in 10 months. Their objections reportedly concerned decisions linked to the special intensive revision. They said some decisions had been taken without their knowledge.

That detail matters because the petition questions whether the Election Commission acted lawfully and collectively. It cites Article 324 of the Constitution, the 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, and an older Supreme Court ruling. The petition therefore seeks records that could show how decisions were made and recorded.

The concerns have become part of wider protests demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The petition asks for files, minutes, notes, objections, and online access logs. These materials could help the court assess whether disputed decisions followed proper procedures, although the article does not report any court finding on those allegations.

If an eligible person’s name is removed from the electoral roll, that person may be unable to vote in an election unless the name is restored in time. The article presents this as a central concern behind the demand for an audit of deletions and modifications. It also links voter-list accuracy to access to the democratic process.

First-time voters could face another barrier because online Form 6 was changed in July. The form now asks whether applicants or relatives appeared on rolls created after the previous SIR in 2002. Critics say families missing from those older rolls could find registration harder. The petition argues that this extra requirement was added without changing the 1960 Registration of Electors Rules.

The leaders want eligible people in Punjab and other poll-bound states to apply for inclusion until the legal deadline. They also seek booth-wise deletion names, reasons, and age and gender data. The article does not state how many citizens have been wrongly excluded.

The petition seeks Election Commission files, meeting minutes, internal notes, commissioner objections, and online access logs because these records can reveal how SIR decisions were made. The leaders want judicial scrutiny of the decision-making process, not merely the final voter lists. They also seek details of the June 24, 2025 decision that launched the nationwide exercise.

The requested documents could clarify whether decisions were taken collectively, whether dissenting commissioners were informed, and whether officials followed the law. Access logs could show who entered or changed online electoral databases. Minutes and notes could preserve the reasoning behind deletions, modifications, and procedural changes.

The petition cites Article 324, the 2023 election commissioners law, and an older Supreme Court ruling. It asks the court to quash decisions found unlawful and act against those responsible for violations. The article does not say whether the Election Commission has agreed to disclose the requested materials.

The petition proposes an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. Its job would be to audit deletions and modifications made during SIR and examine who can access electoral-roll databases. The committee would provide a review separate from the Election Commission’s own processes.

The petitioners want deleted voters’ names published booth by booth, alongside reasons for deletion. They also seek age and gender breakdowns. Comparing these details could show where deletions are concentrated, whether reasons were consistently recorded, and whether particular demographic groups appear unusually affected. The article does not claim that such patterns have already been established.

The proposed committee would also review procedures, decisions, and technical systems connected with electronic voting machines against global best practices. The petition asks for transparency while SIR continues in poll-bound states. Whether the Supreme Court creates such a committee, orders disclosure, or grants other relief remains undecided in the article.

Article 324 places the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission. That constitutional role includes managing the electoral process and maintaining confidence that elections are conducted fairly. The petition invokes Article 324 while questioning whether SIR decisions were lawful and collectively made.

Electoral rolls are foundational because they determine who is recognized as eligible to participate in an election. If eligible names are wrongly deleted, those citizens may be unable to vote. If registration rules become unnecessarily difficult, first-time voters may be left off the list. Transparent records, stated reasons, and review mechanisms help identify and correct such problems.

The article reports objections by two commissioners, protests seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation, and a Supreme Court challenge. The petition seeks disclosure, audits, and possible action over unlawful decisions. The court’s response could clarify how SIR should be implemented while preserving the Election Commission’s constitutional responsibilities.