Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, along with ten other INDIA bloc leaders, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The petition, filed just before the court's registry closed for the day, marks a significant escalation in the opposition's legal battle against the voter roll revision exercise, alleging irregularities and a lack of transparency in the process.

The petition names the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents. It seeks the production of all records relating to the SIR exercise, including agendas, minutes, notings, and ECINET and ERONET access logs, particularly concerning the June 24, 2025 decision to launch the revision. The opposition leaders contend that key decisions were taken unilaterally, without proper collective deliberation as required under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

Petition Seeks Judicial Scrutiny and Suspension of SIR

The reliefs sought in the petition are wide-ranging. The petitioners ask the court to examine whether the SIR decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the 2023 Act, and the principles laid down in the landmark T.N. Seshan v. Union of India judgment. They have sought the quashing of decisions taken without lawful authority and appropriate action against those responsible, including under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

A key demand is the immediate suspension of the SIR exercise across all states pending adjudication. The petition also calls for a direction that every SIR-related decision be taken collectively and duly minuted. Additionally, the leaders want the court to order booth-wise publication of deleted voters' names with reasons for deletion, along with age- and gender-wise breakdowns, and a functional mechanism for restoration of names. They argue that no voter's name should be deleted without notice and an opportunity of hearing. The petition further seeks the constitution of a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit SIR deletions and review EVM processes against global best practices.

Procedural Background: CJI Declines Meeting

The filing came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request from Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge for an appointment to submit a memorandum on the SIR issue. The CJI informed the leaders that the concerns they sought to raise were already pending before the court in similar matters. He clarified that the court could not interfere with the functioning of the government on its administrative side and advised the leaders to approach the court on its judicial side for appropriate relief. The CJI indicated that any petition filed by the opposition could be considered alongside the pending matters, which are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday.

This procedural development did not deter the opposition. On Monday afternoon, Gandhi, Kharge, and other INDIA bloc leaders led a massive "March for Democracy" from Connaught Place towards the Supreme Court. Thousands of political workers and civil rights activists joined, bringing central Delhi arteries like Barakhamba Road and Mandi House to a standstill. The marchers waved national flags and raised slogans alleging "vote theft" and demanding Gyanesh Kumar's resignation.

Political Fallout and Allegations

The petition follows a recent investigative report that alleged CEC Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions regarding the SIR unilaterally, over objections raised by the other two election commissioners. The opposition has seized on these allegations, accusing the Election Commission of acting at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Speaking during the march, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav claimed that the SIR exercise in Uttar Pradesh failed to remove duplicate votes and that the commission appeared to be working for the BJP. Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge questioned the authorization of pre-printed voter registration forms.

The protests have been accompanied by significant police action. Delhi Police imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and detained several protesters, including lawyers and journalists, leading to separate petitions before the Supreme Court. The opposition has criticized the crackdown, which came after Jantar Mantar was reportedly de-notified as a designated protest site, with alternative venues designated at Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and CBD Ground.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the pending matters related to the SIR exercise on Tuesday, and the newly filed petition by Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc leaders is likely to be taken up alongside them. The core legal question before the court is whether the ECI's decision-making process in conducting the SIR adhered to constitutional and statutory safeguards. The petitioners have also sought disclosure of the complete files and logs to ensure transparency. With the opposition's political mobilization showing no signs of abating, the court's intervention could determine the fate of the ongoing voter roll revision process across multiple states ahead of upcoming elections. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record S. Prasanna, now awaits listing before the appropriate bench.