The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on a petition led by Rahul Gandhi challenging alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Court also indicated that it would examine the conduct of one of the petitioners at the next hearing.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the matter be heard alongside other pending petitions concerning the SIR exercise.
Background
Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders approached the Supreme Court seeking judicial scrutiny of the electoral roll revision process. The petition raises concerns over alleged voter deletions, the Election Commission’s decision-making procedure and the transparency of the exercise.
The petition seeks access to records relating to the decision to initiate the SIR, safeguards against arbitrary deletion of voters’ names, and disclosure of deletion data with reasons. It also seeks directions for collective decision-making by the Election Commission and suspension of the revision exercise while the challenge remains pending.
While issuing notice, the bench made it clear that the order should not be interpreted as a finding against any petitioner.
The Chief Justice observed,
“We are issuing notice and tagging it with the matters already pending. Somebody will accept notice on behalf of the Election Commission of India. Otherwise, serve them.”
The bench also said,
“We would like to ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date of hearing.”
Clarifying the significance of the observation, the Court stated, “Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything.” It added that notice concerning one petitioner would be entertained provisionally, subject to an explanation of his conduct.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents and tagged the petition with the existing matters challenging the SIR process. It also indicated that one petitioner would be asked to explain his conduct at the next hearing.
The Court did not specify the petitioner in its oral observations.
