Rahul Gandhi, Kharge Move SC Over Election Commission SIR
Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge challenge the Election Commission in the Supreme Court over Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
In a major legal blow to the Election Commission of India, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge have approached the Supreme Court. The opposition leaders are challenging the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging significant procedural irregularities that threaten the integrity of the voter database.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks an immediate suspension of the ongoing nationwide SIR exercise. The petitioners are demanding an independent audit of voter rolls and deletions to ensure that no legitimate voters are being unfairly removed from the system.
Demanding an Independent Audit and Judicial Oversight
The opposition leaders have gone beyond merely questioning the process; they are calling for a complete overhaul of how the revision is being monitored. The plea seeks the constitution of an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, to perform several critical tasks:
- Examine the implementation of the nationwide revision exercise.
- Review the technical systems governing electoral rolls.
- Audit the systems used for Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
A central pillar of the legal challenge is the allegation that the Chief Election Commissioner has been exercising the collective powers of the Commission unilaterally, without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
Contradictions in Commission Records
The petitioners have raised serious questions regarding the legal authorization of the nationwide SIR. They pointed out inconsistencies in responses received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. While the Commission issued an order on June 24, 2025, regarding the exercise, a subsequent response from the First Appellate Authority suggested that no formal decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025 had actually been taken.
The petition highlights a growing rift within the Commission. It refers to reports suggesting that the two Election Commissioners had recorded formal objections on at least 14 different occasions over a ten-month period. These objections reportedly concerned vital matters such as:
- Voter registration processes.
- The deletion and restoration of names from rolls.
- Access to sensitive electoral-roll data.
While the Election Commission has maintained that differences of opinion are a normal part of the deliberative process and that its decisions remain unanimous, the petitioners argue that the official records must be produced to determine if these decisions comply with Article 324 of the Constitution and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The Controversy Over 'Form 6' Modifications
Another critical issue raised in the Supreme Court is the modification of Form 6 on the ECINET platform in July 2026. Form 6 is the standard document used by citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral rolls.
The petitioners allege that a new declaration was added to the form, requiring applicants or their relatives to declare their status in a previous SIR electoral roll. Crucially, they argue this modification was introduced without a corresponding amendment to the existing Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. This change, they contend, places an undue burden on eligible citizens, particularly first-time voters. The plea notes that during previous proceedings on October 5, the Supreme Court had orally clarified that it had not approved this modified version of the form.