Rahul Gandhi, Opposition Leaders Move Supreme Court Seeking Independent SIR Probe Panel

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and leaders of several Opposition parties approached the Supreme Court on Monday (October 12, 2026) seeking the constitution of an independent committee to enquire into the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the decision-making process relating to it within the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The petition, filed through Supreme Court advocate Prasanna S, was shown on the court's website as filed at 4.37 p.m. It asks the court to call for records and official notings concerning the SIR from the Election Commission, and to examine the online mechanism for voter registration and voter services, including the ECINet portal.

The petitioners include Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge; Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy; Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav; Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav; Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Supriya Sule; Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut; Communist Party of India leader D. Raja; Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MP Mahua Majhi; CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby; and Indian Union Muslim League leader E.T. Mohammed Basheer.

Apart from the Election Commission of India, the respondents named in the petition are Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The filing came on a day when Mr. Gandhi, other Opposition leaders, MPs and activists marched to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had on Sunday (October 11, 2026) declined to meet Mr. Gandhi on October 12, but said that a litigant who wishes to move the court on the judicial side could file a petition with the Supreme Court Registry by 4.30 p.m. on any day.

What the petition concerns

The SIR is a special, intensified revision of electoral rolls carried out by the Election Commission. The Commission has described the exercise as a means of removing entries of voters who have died, permanently shifted or appear more than once on the rolls, and has said it is being conducted in accordance with the law. Opposition parties, civil society groups and some voter organisations have argued that the process risks leaving out eligible electors, and have demanded greater transparency in how names are added, removed or flagged.

The petitioners have also questioned the decision-making process within the Commission on the exercise. The relief sought includes an independent committee of enquiry, a direction to produce records and notings, and a review of the digital systems used for registration and voter services.

What happens next

The petition is among the legal and political challenges to the SIR raised by Opposition parties. It was not immediately known when the Supreme Court would list the matter for hearing. There was no immediate public comment from the Election Commission on the filing.

Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in the Election Commission, and courts have generally been cautious about intervening in the conduct of elections. At the same time, courts have held in earlier cases that the right to vote is protected in law and that a person whose name is wrongly deleted from the rolls must have an opportunity to be heard by the electoral registration officer.

The court's response to the petition, and the Election Commission's stand before it, will determine the next stage of a debate that now spans both the political and judicial arenas.