A petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other opposition figures, joined by a large number of supporters, asked the Supreme Court to place a temporary hold on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls while also raising concerns about reported irregularities in the voting process. A petition lodged at the country's apex court by Congress's legal representatives set out ten distinct forms of relief sought in connection with the SIR and various rulings handed down by the Election Commission.
With the 4:30 pm window at the Supreme Court having passed without Rahul Gandhi's arrival, lawyer S Prasanna stepped in to lodge the petition on his behalf. Rahul Gandhi was joined in the procession by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyanka Gandhi, Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav, Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, and RJD's Tejashwi Yadav, along with numerous other opposition figures who took part in the INDIA bloc rally.
The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, declined to grant a meeting to Rahul Gandhi, citing the matter's pending status before the courts as the basis for that decision. A joint petition was subsequently brought before the Supreme Court by leaders from across the Opposition benches.
Among the positions put forward by opposition parties, a call for Gyanesh Kumar to step down from his role as Chief Election Commissioner stands out as a central point of contention. Court filings in the matter styled as Rahul Gandhi v. Election Commission of India were reviewed by a news outlet, with the case name appearing in the listing on the Supreme Court's official website.
The petition directs the court to order the Election Commission of India to release a complete set of records tied to the Special Intensive Revision — spanning internal agreements, notes from meetings, any objections that were formally lodged, and the administrative files underpinning the process. Among the documentation identified in the filing are the ECINET and ERONET access logs alongside the full file notings tied to the determination, reached on 24 June 2025, to set the SIR in motion.
Protection of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution — along with enforcement of Article 324 — forms the basis of what the petition asks the court to grant. The petition calls on the court to determine whether the contested rulings on the Special Intensive Revision hold up against Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and the doctrinal framework set out in Seshan v. Union of India, the 1995 matter cited as the referenced legal precedent.
Where any decision is found to have been made without the requisite legal authority, the petition calls for that decision to be overturned. The filing also asks the court to direct authorities to pursue accountability against those found to have breached constitutional or legislative requirements tied to how electoral rolls are drawn up and updated, with invocation of Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 identified as one available avenue where circumstances warrant it.
The petition further calls for a ruling on the matters at hand, with all decisions touching on the Special Intensive Revision to be made under Section 18 of the 2023 Act and formally documented. Among the petition's requests is a directive aimed at the Election Commission, asking that the digital version of Form-6 align with the format laid out under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with any departure from that prescribed format permitted only through a formal amendment to the rules themselves.
A panel led by a retired Supreme Court judge — drawn from technical specialists and respected public figures — has been called for to look into voter-roll removals carried out during the Special Intensive Revision, scrutinise who accessed the electoral roll database and what alterations were made, and carry out an assessment of the design and technical architecture underlying Electronic Voting Machines, measured against established international standards.
Among the relief sought through the petition is a directive compelling the Election Commission to make available, on a polling-booth level, a full breakdown of every voter removed from the electoral roll under the SIR — covering the grounds for each removal, a categorisation of those removed by gender and age, and a workable pathway through which eligible individuals may be reinstated.
Two relief measures sit at the heart of the filing: first, that election authorities be barred from removing any voter's name from the rolls unless proper notice has been issued and a fair opportunity to be heard has been afforded in accordance with statutory requirements; and second, that in Punjab and other states facing upcoming polls, qualified individuals retain the right to submit enrolment applications through the legally prescribed cut-off date. The petitioners have asked the court to put the ongoing Special Intensive Revision on hold across all states while the questions raised in their petition are heard and decided.
Among the additional forms of relief requested, the petition calls on the Supreme Court to issue whatever further directives it considers necessary to uphold the integrity of elections and protect the voting rights of all qualified citizens.
