A public interest petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions concerning the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate Chand Qureshi, challenges decisions and changes allegedly made without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The plea follows a report by The Indian Express alleging that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on several occasions over decisions linked to voter registration, deletion of names, electoral-roll software and changes to Form 6.

PLEA CHALLENGES SIR-RELATED DECISIONS

The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to declare decisions, guidelines, directives and software changes allegedly introduced without the required concurrence of the Commission as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

The petition specifically raises objections to changes made to the statutory Form 6 used for voter registration, as well as modifications to electoral-roll management systems.

One of the prayers seeks restoration of the original statutory Form 6 and continued access for eligible citizens to register as voters under the applicable legal framework.

The plea also seeks an investigation into alleged voter deletions during the SIR exercise and raises concerns over the administration and accessibility of the ECI's electoral-roll databases.

ACTION SOUGHT AGAINST ECI OFFICIALS

The petitioner has sought proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, ECI Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna and other officials whom the plea alleges may have breached their statutory duties.

The petition seeks directions for prosecution under applicable provisions of election law if an investigation establishes deliberate violations of official duties.

The plea also challenges the authority under which certain appeals were allegedly filed before tribunals in West Bengal during the SIR process.

These are allegations contained in the petition and have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

CLAIMS OF DISSENT WITHIN ECI

The petition draws on reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to several decisions associated with the SIR exercise.

According to The Indian Express, the two commissioners had formally recorded objections on multiple occasions over issues including voter additions and deletions, Form 6 changes and access to electoral-roll software.

The report said the objections also concerned the degree of centralisation of electoral-roll data and the role of the ECI's information technology division.

ECI SAYS SIR ORDERS HAD UNANIMOUS APPROVAL

The Election Commission subsequently rejected the suggestion that SIR decisions were taken unilaterally.

Following a meeting between CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi on September 26, the poll panel said all SIR orders and Form 6 updates had been approved unanimously. It also said the Supreme Court had upheld its June 24, 2025 order relating to the SIR exercise.

The clarification came amid reports of differences within the three-member Commission over the handling of electoral-roll revision and related technology systems.

OTHER LEGAL CHALLENGES TO SIR

The latest Supreme Court petition comes amid a wider legal challenge to the SIR exercise.

Two petitions were also filed before the Bombay High Court challenging 14 orders associated with the exercise in Maharashtra and seeking safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.

The petitions have sought greater transparency regarding the legal basis and methodology of the revision process, along with restoration of names allegedly removed from electoral rolls.

The Supreme Court has separately been examining aspects of the SIR process, including notices issued to voters over what the ECI terms “logical discrepancies”.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL EXAMINE

The latest PIL puts questions surrounding the ECI's decision-making process, electoral-roll software and Form 6 changes before the Supreme Court.

The court will have to consider the legal issues raised in the petition and, if the matter is taken up, assess the competing claims regarding the manner in which SIR-related decisions were authorised.

The allegations in the petition remain subject to judicial consideration, while the ECI has maintained that its SIR decisions received the required approval of the Commission.