The has formally initiated a review of the process in Maharashtra, issuing a notice to the () regarding a petition that challenges the legitimacy of the recent . The intervention follows mounting concerns over the mass deletion of names from voter lists, with petitioners alleging that nearly one-third of the state’s nine crore voters have been struck off the rolls, creating significant obstacles for citizens ahead of future electoral cycles.
The proceedings are being heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. While the Court has opted not to grant an to stay the publication of the final voters' list—scheduled for —it has set a firm timeline for the to respond, scheduling the matter for a follow-up hearing on . The petition, filed by Arun Anandagiri, highlights the scale of the removals, specifically pointing to the striking off of approximately three crore voters under the broad, often ill-defined category of "."
The Magnitude of Allegations
Senior Advocate , representing the petitioner, underscored the gravity of the situation, noting that in major metropolitan areas such as Pune and Mumbai, as many as 40 percent of registered voters have been purged from the electoral records. The petitioner argued that the ’s current protocol for rectification—requiring those deleted during the SIR process to file "Form 6"—is fundamentally flawed. Form 6 is traditionally reserved for first-time electors, and requiring existing voters to re-register as if they were new applicants is, according to the petitioner, a misapplication of administrative procedure that complicates the democratic process rather than streamlining it.
"In Pune and Bombay, 40% voters are not there,"
Datar submitted to the Court, explaining that while many residents were relocated due to urban redevelopment projects, their records were simply purged on the grounds that they could not be found at their previous addresses. The petitioner emphasized that this process essentially imposes an undue burden on citizens, effectively disenfranchising millions who have previously participated in the electoral system, simply because of automated deletions performed during the SIR.
Procedural Hurdles and Judicial Intervention
The legal controversy also intersects with a broader, systemic challenge currently before the Supreme Court. A separate filed by Advocate has urged the Court to establish an independent expert committee—led by a former Chief Justice or a retired Supreme Court judge—to evaluate the institutional functioning of the . This petition draws attention to internal rifts within the Commission, citing reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have recorded written objections at least 14 times over a ten-month period regarding decisions made by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
These disagreements reportedly concern critical administrative shifts, including changes to the statutory Form 6, the centralization of electoral databases, and the handling of appeals in regions like West Bengal. The petitioner contends that these unilateral or contested decisions undermine the transparency required under , which mandates that the Election Commission hold the superintendence, direction, and control of elections. The Court is being asked to look past individual instances of deletion and examine whether the current operating protocols provide sufficient safeguards for maintaining the integrity of the national electoral database.
Systemic Challenges to Commission Autonomy
The issue of appellate backlog further complicates the situation. Affidavits previously submitted to the Court indicate that in West Bengal alone, nearly 3.8 million appeals were filed by individuals excluded from the rolls, with only a fraction of those cases disposed of by the current tribunal structure. The Supreme Court has already expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of these proceedings, directing the to ensure that all appeals are resolved well ahead of the parliamentary elections slated for 2029.
The current legal atmosphere reflects a growing push for greater accountability. Following a petition filed by the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, and other leaders of the , the is also weighing the necessity of an independent audit of deletions. The petitioners argue that without a committee of experts to oversee the technical architecture of the ’s data management systems, eligible voters will continue to face exclusion without adequate recourse.
The , for its part, has maintained that the dissent recorded by its members constitutes "routine suggestions" and has yet to provide a definitive account of the authorization behind the changes to Form 6. As the deadline approaches, the Court’s focus remains on whether the Commission has adhered to its under the , which requires the Commission to function through consensus.
The legal community is closely watching these proceedings, as they touch upon the core mechanisms of voter verification and the limits of the Election Commission’s . For the residents of Maharashtra, the immediate consequence of the Court’s ongoing inquiry is a stay on further revisions pending the hearing, which will determine whether the must halt its finalization of the rolls or take restorative action to bring the deleted voters back into the system before the next state elections. Until the Commission submits its formal response, the status of three crore voters remains in a state of administrative limbo.
electoral roll revision - voter data transparency - administrative accountability - franchise integrity - data discrepancy
