‘ ₹220 shortfall in court fee, missing pages’: Supreme Court registry cites 10 defects in Rahul Gandhi's plea

The Supreme Court registry checks whether a petition is properly prepared before it reaches the judges. In this case, it found more than 10 defects in the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders over alleged voter deletions and SIR irregularities. These defects concern completeness, readability, identification documents and payment of the required fee.

One specific objection involved Mallikarjun Kharge, a co-petitioner and Congress president. The filing lawyer was asked to provide a clear copy of Kharge’s ID card. The registry also flagged illegible or missing pages and reported a court-fee shortfall of over ₹200, specified in the article’s key answers as ₹220.

The petition therefore needs procedural corrections before the case can move smoothly through the court process. The defects do not decide whether the allegations are true. They indicate that the filing must be made complete and compliant before judges consider its requests.

The Supreme Court registry is the court’s administrative machinery for receiving and checking filings. It examines whether petitions contain the required documents, readable pages, correct details and prescribed court fees. This preliminary check helps ensure that judges receive a usable and procedurally complete record rather than a defective filing.

For example, the registry flagged more than 10 issues in this petition. It sought a clear copy of Mallikarjun Kharge’s ID card, identified illegible or missing pages and noted a ₹220 court-fee shortfall. These are filing problems, not judicial findings about alleged voter deletions or SIR irregularities.

A petition may be returned for correction because judges should decide the legal questions on a complete record. Once the defects are cured and the filing is accepted, the court can consider the petition’s requests, including an audit, disclosure of Election Commission records and suspension of the ongoing exercise. The article does not state what deadline the registry gave for corrections.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an electoral-roll exercise intended to examine voter records in detail and update the list. In general terms, such a revision can involve checking entries, correcting details, adding eligible electors and removing entries considered ineligible. The source identifies the process but does not provide its full operational rules.

The petition focuses on alleged large-scale deletions and irregularities during the SIR. It asks for an independent audit of deletions and modifications, led by a retired Supreme Court judge with technical experts and other eminent citizens. It also seeks records connected with disputed decisions, including ECINET and ERONET access logs.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to suspend the ongoing SIR while the issues are considered. It also seeks protection against deleting any elector without notice and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The source states that the exercise was to begin nationally following a June 24, 2025 decision, but gives no further process details.

The alleged scale is described only as “large-scale”; the article provides no numerical count of deleted or modified voter entries. That means the available text cannot establish whether the allegations involve thousands, millions or another figure. The petition asks for an independent audit precisely to examine the extent and nature of the disputed changes.

The geographical reference is also limited. The petition asks that eligible people in Punjab and other states going to polls be allowed to seek inclusion until the last legally permitted date. It separately challenges the decision to commence the SIR exercise across the country, suggesting a national scope for the exercise itself.

The article does not identify the specific elections, dates or complete list of affected states. It therefore supports only a cautious conclusion: Punjab and other poll-bound states could be affected, while the alleged total remains unquantified. The requested audit and Election Commission records could establish the scale if the court orders them.

An electoral roll determines who is recorded as an eligible elector for an election. If an eligible person is removed without notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, that person may be unable to participate through the ordinary voting process. The harm is especially serious when a revision occurs close to an election and correction becomes difficult.

The petition asks the court to direct that no elector be deleted without notice and a reasonable hearing in accordance with law. It also seeks to let eligible people in Punjab and other states going to polls apply for inclusion until the last date permitted by law. These requests target both protection from wrongful removal and access to a correction route.

The article does not say that any particular voter has definitively been denied a ballot. It reports allegations and the safeguards sought by petitioners. If the court grants those requests, the process could require stronger notice, hearing opportunities and access to inclusion before relevant deadlines.

The petition was filed by Rahul Gandhi and opposition leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge, Saugata Roy, Akhilesh Yadav, Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Supriya Sule and Sanjay Raut. The respondents named are the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The petitioners allege large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in SIR. They ask for an independent audit led by a retired Supreme Court judge and supported by technical experts and eminent citizens. They also seek Election Commission files, ECINET and ERONET access logs, protections against deletion without notice and a reasonable hearing, and continued inclusion opportunities for eligible voters.

As an interim measure, they want the ongoing SIR suspended across the states of the Union. They also ask the court to examine whether disputed decisions complied with Article 324, the 2023 appointment law and Supreme Court precedent. The article does not state the respondents’ formal position or requested outcome.

Electoral rolls are official lists of people registered as electors for particular constituencies. Election authorities revise them so eligible people can be included and entries can be corrected or removed under applicable rules. Accurate rolls help ensure that eligible citizens can vote and that election administration relies on a clear, trusted record.

The article’s dispute shows the key mechanism at issue. During SIR, alleged deletions and modifications were made to electoral-roll entries. The petition asks that no elector be removed without notice and a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. It also seeks audit records, decision files and ECINET and ERONET access logs to examine how disputed changes were made.

If eligible names are removed, affected voters may lose access to the election unless they can secure timely inclusion. If records are not transparent, public confidence may suffer. The article therefore connects accurate rolls with voter protection, lawful administration and the integrity of the electoral process.