New Delhi [India], October 12 (ANI): The standoff between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the opposition over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls escalated on Monday as thousands flooded the streets of the national capital for a high-profile march to the Supreme Court, led by Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi. The demonstrations culminated in a formal petition filed by 11 INDIA bloc leaders challenging the poll panel.
The petitioners include Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, CPI(M) MP MA Baby, CPI leader D Raja, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MP Mahua Majhi, NCP (SCP) MP Supriya Sule and Indian Union Muslim League MP ET Mohammed Basheer.
Earlier in the day, Rahul Gandhi alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was “protecting” Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, saying the march would highlight the issue before the country.
The march saw participation from prominent opposition leaders, including Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, Telangana CM Revanth Reddy and Himachal Pradesh CM Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu. Former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also joined, asserting that the movement was aimed at seeking “justice for the sake of humanity.”
After the petition, Rahul Gandhi thanked the participants for supporting the march. “Today was a very important day because we needed to show the government that the people of India are not going to be intimidated,” he said on X.
All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, who has been actively participating in the recent protests against CEC, was seen walking alongside Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi.
The ‘March for Democracy’ brought key stretches of the capital, including Barakhamba Road and Mandi House, to a standstill. Protesters waved national flags, held placards and raised slogans alleging irregularities in the SIR.
After reaching the Supreme Court, leaders expressed hope for justice from the judiciary. Akhilesh Yadav, who earlier alleged that the Election Commission seemed to be working at the behest of the BJP, said, “We are hopeful that we will get justice from the Supreme Court.”
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had agreed to hear the opposition’s grievances, calling it a “victory of democracy.”
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut said, “We have come here along with the people. We must pin our hopes on the Supreme Court… the petition contains many points… this is a matter concerning the country, the Constitution, and the rights of the people… the Supreme Court is our ray of hope.”
Reffering to CJI Surya Kant’s statement reagarding law and order, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and MLA Aaditya Thackeray said, “Law falls within their (CJI) jurisdiction, and the responsibility for maintaining it also lies with them.”
Karnataka CM DK Shivakumar said the protest represented the concerns of people across the country and demanded that the SIR be “scrapped” and ballot papers restored.
Himachal Pradesh CM Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu said the right to vote “was effectively stolen,” stating that Rahul Gandhi has raised the issue for two years. “Our AICC office-bearers will determine the future strategy,” he said.
Punjab Congress President Pargat Singh said the BJP was “dismantling the entire democratic framework.”
Congress MP Amarinder Singh Raja Warring urged the Chief Justice to meet the opposition leaders. “If the Chief Justice of India will not meet us, then who will listen to the grievances of the public,” he said.
Attacking the Centre, Uttar Pradesh Congress in-charge Rajendra Pal Gautam said, ”Today, the government is committing an injustice against the nation. Legitimate votes of the people are being deleted. Votes are being stolen… We have all come here to protect the Constitution. We will save democracy and the Constitution.”
Amid the march, a controversy erupted over a now-deleted post by the Keralam Congress unit that made disparaging comments about the CJI and sought his replacement.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned statements circulating on social media seeking the resignation of CJI Surya Kant.
“Statements of this nature belittle the institution of the judiciary and amount to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice,” the SCBA said.
Following the condemnation, Congress MP Pawan Khera distanced the national party from the remarks. “We completely disagree with this position, whoever has done it. It is completely incorrect. We have absolute faith in the judiciary of this country and respect the highest court. That is exactly why we went to the doorstep of the highest court and knocked on its door because of the confidence we have in the judiciary,” he told ANI.
KPCC President Sunny Joseph said the person responsible for the post on the party’s official X account had been removed from the position. “The KPCC will examine the circumstances under which the post was published. The Congress party has no disagreement with the impartiality of the judiciary. Social media posts expressing views contrary to this position do not reflect the stand of the KPCC leadership,” he said.
The petition by INDIA Bloc leaders was filed following a written communication dated October 11 from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in response to a representation made by Rahul Gandhi and Kharge on October 10. According to the petition, the CJI had indicated that matters raising similar issues were scheduled for hearing on October 13 and assured that any petition filed would be heard at the earliest possible opportunity, in accordance with law. The petitioners have sought consideration of their plea along with connected proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise across the country pending adjudication of the issues raised. It also seeks the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the implementation of the revision exercise and review the technical systems governing electoral rolls and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The petitioners have raised questions over the alleged exercise of the Election Commission’s collective powers by the Chief Election Commissioner without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. They have also sought production of the records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide SIR, including files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the commissioners.
The plea contends that the Election Commission must function as a multi-member constitutional body and that decisions concerning electoral rolls must comply with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The petition refers to a report published by a newspaper on September 23, 2026, which stated that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months concerning decisions relating to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and access to electoral-roll data.
It also acknowledges the Election Commission’s response that the reports presented only one aspect of the matter, that differences of opinion were normal in deliberative processes and that its decisions were unanimous. The petitioners have said the issue requires examination of the Commission’s official records to determine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with law.
The petition has also questioned the existence of a formal decision authorising the nationwide SIR.
It refers to responses received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, stating that an application seeking the files and notings concerning the decision to undertake the exercise was provided only the Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025.
According to the petition, the First Appellate Authority subsequently recorded that the Commission had, until then, not taken a decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025. The petitioners have argued that this statement appears inconsistent with the Commission’s June 24, 2025, order and its press note dated September 26, 2026, which stated that the order had the unanimous approval of the Commission.
They have sought production of the complete file recording the decision to ascertain whether the nationwide exercise was lawfully authorised.The petition also questions the modification of the online Form 6 on the ECINET platform in July 2026 to include a declaration concerning the presence of the applicant or their relatives in an earlier SIR electoral roll.
Form 6 is the prescribed form for applying for inclusion in electoral rolls under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The petition alleges that the additional declaration was introduced without a corresponding amendment to the applicable rules, potentially imposing an additional burden on eligible citizens, particularly first-time voters.It further refers to the Supreme Court’s oral clarification on October 5 in pending SIR proceedings that it had not approved the modified Form 6.
The petitioners have sought a direction to ensure that the online form conforms to the form prescribed under the applicable rules unless the rules are lawfully amended.Raising concerns over the functioning of the ECINET and ERONET electoral-roll databases, the petition seeks an independent technical audit of access permissions, alterations to electoral records, deletions and mechanisms for restoring eligible voters.
It alleges that the centralised functioning of the databases and the absence of an effective mechanism to reverse erroneous deletions could undermine the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.
The plea also flags concerns over the processing of objections seeking deletion of names, including alleged bulk filing of Form 7 objections, the use of purportedly forged names and the targeting of particular communities and women. These allegations have been raised by the petitioners and are yet to be adjudicated.
The BJP hit out at the Congress over the episode.
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju lashed out at the opposition leaders on Monday, calling the Congress party “directionless”.
While maintaining that protesting is every citizen’s right, Rijiju took to X to state that “brazenly abusing constitutional authorities is deplorable.”
Escalating his attack on the opposition leadership, he added, “Congress Party is directionless now. But they can improve their numbers if they have a mature and committed leader who doesn’t enjoy spending 200 holidays a year.”
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey criticised the march to the Supreme Court, questioned the opposition’s decision to stage a protest march to the Supreme Court, arguing that grievances concerning constitutional authorities should be addressed through established legal and parliamentary procedures. (ANI)
Related reading
