A public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court has sought an independent investigation into alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission of India, including claims relating to voter deletions during the Special Intensive Revision, changes to Form 6 and decisions allegedly taken without majority approval. The Election Commission has rejected suggestions of an institutional breakdown, maintaining that its major decisions were taken unanimously.
New Delhi, Sept 2026 : A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking an independent probe into alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including the conduct of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and decisions linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks an investigation into what it describes as alleged deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls, changes to the statutory Form 6 used for voter registration and decisions allegedly taken without the concurrence of a majority of Election Commissioners.
According to the plea, the petitioner has also sought an independent investigation by a judicial inquiry commission or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged irregularities. The petition further seeks restoration of the original Form 6 and appropriate action against officials found responsible for any violations.
The PIL has relied on documents and media reports concerning alleged differences within the three-member poll panel. It refers in particular to reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written objections on at least 14 occasions between November 2025 and August 2026.
The reported objections covered several aspects of electoral-roll management, including the SIR exercise, voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, IT systems and administrative decisions. The Indian Express reported that the two Election Commissioners had raised objections to certain decisions and orders which they said had been issued without their knowledge or the Commission's concurrence.
The petition alleges that changes were made to Form 6 through the ECI's information-technology systems, including making a link with the “last SIR” mandatory for certain first-time voter applications. The plea contends that such a change could not have been introduced without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Another major issue raised in the petition concerns the management and accessibility of electoral-roll databases. The petitioner has alleged that statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers were curtailed through greater centralisation of electoral-roll management under the ECI's IT division.
The plea has cited the case of 97 electors in Goa, alleging that Electoral Registration Officers were unable to restore their names despite finding them eligible because the ECINet system lacked a facility to reverse or roll back certain changes.
The petition has also raised concerns about the SIR process in West Bengal. It refers to claims that 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the name of the Election Commission against citizens whose names had been restored by judicial officers. The issue of such appeals had also figured among concerns reported to have been raised internally by Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.
The petitioner has further challenged an administrative order issued on July 28 concerning the ECI's IT oversight structure. According to the plea, Sandhu and Joshi subsequently raised objections over the order and questioned whether such changes could be made without approval of the full Commission.
On the legal aspect, the petition argues that actions allegedly involving manipulation of electoral rolls, if established, would fall outside the scope of acts performed in the discharge of official duties. It has therefore sought investigation and criminal proceedings against officials found responsible.
The PIL comes amid an ongoing public debate over the reported differences within the Election Commission. The ECI, however, has rejected suggestions that the reported objections represent an institutional “rupture”. In its September 23 response, the poll panel said written observations and differing views are established parts of deliberations within a multi-member constitutional body. It maintained that major decisions, including those concerning SIR, were ultimately taken unanimously.
The Indian Express report that triggered much of the recent debate said Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on multiple occasions. India Today also reported that despite the objections, the three Election Commissioners continued to appear together at several public briefings, indicating that differences recorded internally did not necessarily translate into a public split.
The Supreme Court will now determine whether the petition warrants judicial consideration and any directions for an investigation. The allegations contained in the PIL remain matters for examination and have not been judicially established.
