Opposition Leaders Challenge EC’s Nationwide Voter‑Roll Revision in Supreme Court

In an unmistakable show of resistance, the two main opposition figures – Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Lok Sabha opposition, and Mallikarjun Kharge, the Rajya Sabha opposition chief – marched to the Supreme Court this week. Their aim? To put the Election Commission’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under a legal microscope.

The petition, lodged under Article 32 of the Constitution, doesn’t just ask for a pause. It insists on a full‑stop to the SIR exercise across India until the court can decide whether the process was, frankly, above board. Moreover, the duo wants an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, to comb through the voter database, the deletions, and even the electronic voting machines.

One of the core complaints centres on how the chief election commissioner allegedly went ahead with the nationwide SIR without the explicit nod of the other commissioners. The petitioners want the court to see the files – minutes, notings, objections – that document the decision‑making. In their view, the Election Commission is supposed to act as a multi‑member constitutional body, a point enshrined in Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act governing the commission.

Supporting this claim, the petition points to a newspaper report from 23 September 2026, which noted that the two other election commissioners had raised objections on at least fourteen occasions over ten months. These objections touched on voter registration, deletion, restoration of names, and access to the electoral‑roll data. The EC, for its part, dismissed the report as a one‑sided snapshot, insisting that dissent is normal in deliberations and that its final orders were unanimous.

Another snag in the petition is the legality of the SIR itself. The petitioners say the EC never produced a formal, documented decision authorising a nation‑wide SIR. Right‑to‑Information replies only yielded an order dated 24 June 2025, while the First Appellate Authority later noted that no decision to start a nationwide SIR had been taken at that point. This, they argue, clashes with a later press note from 26 September 2026 that claimed unanimous approval.

Adding to the confusion is a tweak to Form 6 on the ECINET portal in July 2026. The new version asks applicants to declare whether they or their relatives appeared in an earlier SIR roll – a requirement not backed by any amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The petition contends this creates an unnecessary hurdle, especially for first‑time voters, and cites a Supreme Court oral clarification on 5 October that the court had not sanctioned the change.

Beyond paperwork, the petition raises technical concerns about the ECINET and ERONET databases. It calls for an independent audit of who can access the databases, how records are altered or deleted, and whether there’s a reliable way to restore mistakenly removed voters. The fear is that a centralized system without robust safeguards could erode the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.

Perhaps the most alarming allegation concerns mass deletions. The petition points to a draft roll in Punjab released on 13 August 2026, which showed a drop of roughly 20.66 lakh names from the June 2026 roll of about 2.14 crore. It also notes that some 12.80 lakh electors could not be matched to post‑2003 rolls and were asked to produce documents within a month or risk removal. The petition asks the court to order the publication of booth‑wise deletion data, broken down by age, gender and reason, and to ensure no voter is deleted without notice and a chance to be heard.

All told, the petition is less about questioning the concept of revising electoral rolls and more about how the process is being executed. The opposition wants transparency, accountability and, above all, confidence that every eligible citizen’s vote will be counted.