A fresh legal storm has engulfed the Election Commission of India, with a new petition before the Supreme Court demanding that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar face criminal prosecution over his conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The plea argues that Kumar enjoys no personal immunity from the law and can be investigated and tried “as an ordinary accused,” setting up a fresh confrontation between the poll body and the country’s top court.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate-on-record Chand Qureshi, leans heavily on an investigative report published on September 23 that reportedly documents internal friction inside the three-member Commission between November 2025 and August 2026. According to the plea, the two other Election Commissioners, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, repeatedly objected to decisions taken during the SIR exercise, including changes to Form 6, the voter-registration form, and the handling of electoral-roll software and databases.
Allegations of Unilateral Decisions and a Demand for Criminal Accountability
At the heart of the petition is the claim that several major calls on the SIR — including software modifications and directives affecting the electoral roll — were pushed through by the CEC without the concurrence of Sandhu and Joshi. The plea cites Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which requires disputes between commissioners to be settled by majority opinion. On that basis, it asks the court to declare all such unilateral decisions, guidelines and software changes “unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio,” and to restore the original Form 6.
The petitioner further contends that any unauthorised tampering with the electoral roll would amount to a cognizable offence under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with falsification of records and public servants disobeying lawful directions. On this ground, the plea seeks directions to the competent authority to register complaints and launch criminal prosecution against Kumar, along with Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and the Commission’s IT head, Seema Khanna.
SIT Probe Sought Into Deletion of Crore of Voters
Beyond the demand for prosecution, the petition presses for an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into the deletion and subsequent restoration of voters during the SIR drive, which reportedly removed more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across roughly 30 states and Union territories. The plea also seeks the quashing of an estimated 16.10 lakh appeals said to have been filed in the Election Commission’s name before Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal, contesting the inclusion of certain electors, on the grounds that they lacked statutory backing.
The petition arrives at a politically sensitive moment, days after reports surfaced of sustained internal dissent within the Commission over the SIR’s execution. With objections from two sitting Election Commissioners already on record, the plea significantly raises the legal stakes for the CEC and could force the Supreme Court to weigh in on the limits of executive-style authority within India’s constitutionally protected election machinery. A hearing date has not yet been announced.