Supreme Court flags 14 errors and ₹220 fee shortfall in Rahul Gandhi's petition

The Supreme Court registry has flagged 14 procedural defects, including a court fee shortfall of ₹220, in the writ petition moved by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and allied INDIA bloc leaders challenging the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The petition, lodged under Diary Number 64196/2026 through advocate-on-record S Prasanna, cannot proceed to a bench until the petitioners cure the procedural errors and clear the outstanding registry dues.

Why the petition was filed

The court filing came after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request from Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge for an administrative meeting. The opposition leaders had sought an appointment to present a memorandum raising grievances over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Declining the request, Chief Justice Kant made it clear that the judiciary cannot intervene in governmental affairs from the administrative side. He noted that matters related to the revision process were already pending before the bench, reminding the leaders that any grievances must be pursued through formal judicial filings rather than private representations.

Following that refusal, opposition leaders organised a protest march towards the Supreme Court on Monday before submitting the petition through counsel shortly before registry filing counters closed.

Who is named in the case

Besides Gandhi and Kharge, the petition lists nine other opposition figures as co-petitioners, including Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Tejashwi Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Supriya Sule of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), Sanjay Raut of the Shiv Sena (UBT), Trinamool Congress leader Saugata Roy, and representatives from the CPI(M), CPI, JMM and IUML.

The plea names the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents.

What the opposition is asking for

The petition seeks an immediate halt to the nationwide rollout of the SIR process, which was initiated following a commission decision on 24 June 2025. The opposition wants the court to order the disclosure of internal commission records, file notings, and access logs from the ECINET and ERONET voter registration platforms.

Among the reliefs sought, the leaders have asked for:

• A court-appointed committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit deletions from voter lists and review voting machinery processes.
• Booth-level publication of all removed voters, complete with stated reasons, age profiles and gender breakdowns.
• An order mandating individual hearings before any name can be struck from the roll, alongside extended application deadlines for poll-bound states such as Punjab.
• Legal scrutiny to determine whether commission decisions conformed with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

What happens next

The counsel representing the opposition leaders must rectify the 14 defects noted by the registry and deposit the required ₹220 fee before the matter can be assigned for listing. Related petitions regarding the voter roll revision exercise remain listed for consideration before the top court.