The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged voter list manipulation, a controversy earlier raised by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi heard the matter and made it clear that the top court wasn’t inclined to intervene. “Pursue your remedy wherever you want,” Justice Surya Kant told the petitioner’s counsel, signaling the end of the road for the PIL at this level.
The petitioner, advocate Rohit Pandey, claimed that large-scale irregularities had surfaced in electoral rolls-ranging from duplicate names to fictitious voters-undermining the principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ He alleged that these discrepancies not only violated constitutional provisions ensuring equality and personal liberty (Articles 14 and 21) but also struck at the very core of democratic integrity guaranteed under Articles 324 to 326.
According to the petition, a shocking number of fake entries were discovered in Mahadevapura, a constituency under the Bengaluru Central Parliamentary seat. The plea pointed to over 40,000 invalid entries and thousands of duplicate voter records, some with the same house number or father’s name repeated. Similar anomalies, it said, were detected in Maharashtra, including a case in Chandrapur, where nearly 80 voters were registered at one unoccupied address.
The petitioner told the Court that despite representations to the Election Commission of India (ECI), no meaningful action was taken. He urged for a high-level, independent probe to restore public faith in the electoral process.
But the Bench remained unconvinced. Justice Kant, while dismissing the plea, remarked that such petitions-though presented in public interest-cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court as a first resort. “If your representation was not considered, you may seek remedy through proper legal channels. But we cannot convert every political concern into a PIL,” the Court observed.
The Court’s stance reinforces its recent caution against overuse of the PIL jurisdiction for matters that involve administrative or statutory remedies elsewhere.
The petition had also criticized the Election Commission for publishing voter lists in formats difficult for the public to verify, arguing that it hampered transparency. Yet, the Court didn’t enter into that debate, choosing instead to remind the petitioner of alternative remedies available under law.
In essence, the Supreme Court declined to take the matter any further. With its brief order, the bench concluded:
“The writ petition, purportedly filed in public interest, shall not be entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternate remedies as available.”
The case, Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India, thus stands dismissed - leaving the petitioner free to approach other forums, perhaps the Election Commission or a High Court, if he wishes to take the fight forward.
Case Title: Rohit Pandey v. Union of India
Date of Order: October 13, 2025