Guwahati: The Supreme Court Registry has flagged 14 defects in a writ petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and nine other INDIA bloc leaders challenging aspects of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Among the objections, the Registry has sought clarification on the inclusion of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents, questioning the basis for naming the three officials in their personal capacities in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioners have alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s exercise of its powers during the SIR process and sought judicial scrutiny of the decisions taken and procedures followed in revising electoral rolls.
In its objections notified on October 12, the Registry directed the petitioners to correct the names of respondents in the listing proforma, amend the respondent details on page 9 and provide the appropriate respondent number in the prayer section.
The Registry also flagged the absence of a mandatory similarity paragraph required under the Supreme Court Rules. The statement is intended to clarify whether the petitioners had previously approached the court over the same or similar issues and, if so, the outcome of those proceedings. The objection was recorded twice under the notation “SIMILARITY PARA NOT FOUND.”
The petitioners were further asked to attach a copy of a decision dated June 24, 2025, cited in the petition. The Registry also pointed out a discrepancy in the date of Annexure P-2, a mismatch between the case number mentioned in Annexure P-5 and the petition details, and the need to submit a pen drive containing Annexure P-6.
Other objections concerned missing documents, including vakalatnamas for petitioners three to eleven and a legible copy of the identity card of the second petitioner. The Registry also directed the petitioners to pay an additional Rs 220 in court fees.
The Registry sought colour copies of pages 57 and 64 and raised concerns over the quality and presentation of the documents. These included faint or illegible pages, small font sizes, missing pages, the inclusion of a page in a vernacular language and inconsistencies in pagination. It noted that the final identification of defects would depend on the printout.
Filed on October 12 under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition challenges aspects of the Election Commission’s functioning during the SIR exercise, including changes to Form 6 and the operation of the ECINET and ERONET systems. It also questions the procedures used to delete or restore names in electoral rolls.
The petitioners have sought the production of the Election Commission’s files, agendas, minutes, internal notings and objections relating to the disputed decisions taken during the revision exercise.
They have also requested judicial scrutiny of whether the Commission acted in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. Among their other demands are an independent audit of electoral-roll databases and deletions, and directions to ensure that no elector is removed from the rolls without prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The filing followed written communication from the Chief Justice of India on October 11, stating that matters involving similar issues were scheduled for hearing on October 13. The communication indicated that the petitioners could submit their plea on October 12, either through physical filing or e-filing.
The Registry’s objections concern procedural and documentary deficiencies in the petition and do not, by themselves, constitute a judicial ruling on the merits of the challenges raised against the SIR exercise.