NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and senior poll officials on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 other opposition leaders alleging irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including the large-scale deletion of voters’ names.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. In a separate matter, the court also issued notices to Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and others on a plea concerning their march towards the Supreme Court over the alleged SIR irregularities. During the proceedings, the court observed that nobody could browbeat the judiciary, underscoring that judicial institutions must be able to function without intimidation or pressure.
Petition Seeks Disclosure of EC Decisions and SIR Records
The petition filed by 13 opposition leaders seeks greater transparency and accountability in the Election Commission’s decision-making process concerning the SIR exercise. It seeks a detailed account of decisions and issues on which differences allegedly arose between the Chief Election Commissioner and the other two Election Commissioners. The petition also asks the court to establish who authorised changes to Form 6, which is used for voter registration, and direct the disclosure of relevant meeting minutes and all records relating to the SIR process.
Opposition Seeks Independent Audit of SIR
The petitioners have called for an independent committee to examine the constitutional validity of decisions taken in connection with the SIR exercise. They have also sought directions to make public the names of voters deleted from electoral rolls during the revision, along with the reasons for their removal. Additionally, the petition seeks an interim stay on the ongoing SIR process and action against officials found responsible for the alleged irregularities.
The allegations and demands raised in the petition remain subject to judicial consideration.
