Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission Response on Opposition Challenge to Voter Roll Revisions

The Supreme Court on 15 October 2026 directed the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to respond to a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and twelve other opposition leaders. The petition challenges alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the commission, Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The court also issued notice on a related matter concerning an opposition march. Chief Justice Kant remarked that the court was aware of statements made outside and inside the courtroom and warned against attempts to pressure the judiciary through protests or public remarks.

The petitioners include Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, and CPI leader D Raja. They seek an independent audit of deletions and changes made during the revision, disclosure of records, safeguards against deletions without notice, and a mechanism to restore names. They have also asked that no name be removed without a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

A separate plea concerning Delhi's revision, seeking public disclosure of voters issued notices and the specific reasons for each notice, has been advanced to 28 October. Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that the period for claims and objections in Delhi has been extended to 30 October, after which the final list is due. The commission has said more than 43 lakh voters in Delhi were marked as shifted or absent, more than 2.8 lakh as deceased, and more than 1.4 lakh as enrolled at multiple places.

The Election Commission has maintained that all decisions on the revision received unanimous consent from the three commissioners and that updates to Form 6 were upheld by the court in an earlier order. It has extended claim periods in several states and directed chief electoral officers to facilitate re-enrolment of eligible voters. Opposition parties argue that the process has removed genuine electors and that the criteria for logical discrepancies remain opaque.

The court has not stayed the ongoing revisions. The notices require the commission to file responses before further hearings. The outcome will determine whether additional transparency measures or an independent audit are ordered before final lists are published in the states currently undergoing the exercise.

For voters whose names have been marked for deletion, the immediate practical question is the process and deadline for filing claims. For the commission, the notices add a judicial timeline to an exercise already under political scrutiny. The next scheduled hearing on the Delhi disclosure plea is 28 October, before the extended claim period closes on 30 October.