Here are the ten directions Rahul Gandhi has sought from Supreme Court in his petition on SIR

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused exercise to check and update electoral rolls. It may involve verifying existing entries, adding eligible people, and removing duplicate, ineligible, or otherwise incorrect entries. The article describes an ongoing SIR but does not provide a formal definition or state a specific reason for launching it nationwide.

The Election Commission’s June 24, 2025 order recorded a decision to launch nationwide SIR, while the petition asks the Supreme Court to examine that decision. The exercise is also taking place in various States, including poll-bound States. Form 6 is being used by people seeking inclusion in the rolls.

The dispute concerns how the revision is being carried out. The petition alleges large-scale deletions, bulk objections, forged names, and targeting of communities and women. It seeks an audit, notice and hearing before deletion, publication of reasons, and a restoration process. These safeguards could determine whether SIR improves roll accuracy without excluding eligible citizens.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to inspect how the Election Commission made and implemented SIR decisions. It seeks files, minutes, notings, objections recorded by Election Commissioners, and ECINET and ERONET access logs. It also asks for the complete file behind the June 24, 2025 decision to launch nationwide SIR.

The requested orders go further. The petition seeks examination of compliance with Article 324, Section 18 of the 2023 CEC Act, and the TN Seshan ruling. It asks the Court to quash decisions taken without lawful authority, direct action for breaches, and require every SIR decision to be taken and minuted properly. It also challenges the modified online Form 6.

The petition proposes a retired Supreme Court judge’s committee to audit deletions and review EVM processes. It seeks booth-wise publication of deleted names, reasons, and demographic breakdowns. It also asks for no deletion without notice and hearing, continued inclusion opportunities, and interim suspension of SIR across States.

The reported reduction in Punjab is about 20.66 lakh names in the draft electoral roll. That is the clearest numerical indication of the alleged scale in the article. The petition also describes large-scale voter deletions across the ongoing SIR, but the article provides no combined figure for all States.

The Punjab allegation appears alongside claims of bulk Form 7 objections, forged names, and targeting of specific communities and women. The petition says some deletions occurred without notice and a hearing. It therefore asks the Court to examine the records behind disputed decisions and to audit the deletion process independently.

The figure remains a reported reduction in a draft roll, not a final judicial finding that every removed name was wrongly deleted. The petition seeks booth-wise publication of deleted names and reasons, plus a functional restoration mechanism. Those records could clarify how many deletions were justified, disputed, or reversed.

Electoral-roll deletion can prevent an eligible person from appearing on the list used for voter inclusion. If the person receives no notice, they may not know they must challenge the removal. Without a hearing, officials may not consider evidence showing that the person remains eligible. Without restoration, even a wrongly deleted voter may be unable to return in time.

The petition points to Punjab’s reported reduction of about 20.66 lakh names. It also flags alleged targeting of specific communities and women, along with bulk Form 7 objections and forged names. Its requested remedy includes booth-wise publication of deleted names, reasons, and gender and age breakdowns, followed by a functional restoration mechanism.

The consequences described are risks and allegations, not established findings. Still, the requested safeguards show what is at stake: equal access to electoral participation and confidence that roll changes are lawful. Notice, hearing, and correction procedures would allow affected citizens to respond and help courts and officials check patterns in deletions.

Form 6 is the application used by people seeking to register as voters for the first time. During SIR, the Election Commission added a declaration asking whether the applicant, a parent, or a grandparent appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll. The petition challenges this July 2026 modification.

Critics argue that the declaration could burden first-time voters whose families were absent from old rolls. They also argue that the ECI could not alter a statutory form without following the procedure for amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The additional requirement reportedly drew objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The ECI said in a September 26 press note that the declaration had been upheld by the Supreme Court. On October 5, however, the Court said it had not approved it because the modification issue had never come before it. The dispute therefore concerns both access and legal procedure.

The petition relies on Article 324, Section 18 of the 2023 law governing Election Commissioners, and the Constitution Bench ruling in the TN Seshan case. Its central claim is that the Chief Election Commissioner does not enjoy a superior status over the other Election Commissioners when the Commission exercises its powers.

It alleges that CEC Gyanesh Kumar acted without the knowledge, approval, or concurrence of the other Commissioners. The petition cites an Indian Express investigation reporting that the two Commissioners recorded objections at least 14 times over ten months. It asks for internal files, minutes, notings, and objections so the Court can test those competing accounts.

The ECI’s stated position is that its decisions were unanimous, while records cited in media reports suggest otherwise. The petition asks the Court to examine whether decisions complied with the legal framework, quash decisions taken without lawful authority, and require every SIR decision to be taken and minuted under Section 18 while the case continues.

An electoral roll is the official list used to determine whether a person is registered to vote. If an eligible person’s name is missing, that person may be unable to participate. If ineligible or duplicate entries remain, confidence in the list can suffer. Accurate rolls therefore matter to both individual participation and representative government.

The petition alleges that some names were deleted without notice or hearing. It cites Punjab’s draft roll, which reportedly had about 20.66 lakh fewer names, and flags bulk Form 7 objections, forged names, and possible targeting of communities and women. It asks for booth-wise publication of deleted names, reasons, and gender and age breakdowns.

Notice and a hearing give affected citizens a chance to respond before removal. A restoration mechanism gives them a practical remedy when errors occur. Public records let officials, courts, and citizens examine patterns. The article presents these as requested safeguards, not as findings already established by the Court.