The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India to respond to allegations of large-scale voter deletions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices on October 15, 2026, according to India Today.

The notices were issued to the poll body, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The dispute raises questions about voter deletions, changes to registration procedures and whether affected citizens receive adequate notice before their names are removed from electoral rolls.

Who filed the SIR petition and what it alleges

The petition was filed by Rahul Gandhi and nine other INDIA Bloc leaders challenging the conduct of the electoral-roll revision, according to LiveLaw. 

The petitioners, including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, alleged serious procedural irregularities during the nationwide special intensive revision exercise. Their allegations centre on three issues. First, they question whether the exercise was authorised through a properly recorded decision. Second, they challenge changes allegedly made to Form 6 without amending the applicable statutory rules. Third, they claim eligible voters were removed without adequate notice, hearings or effective opportunities for reinstatement.

The petitioners also raised concerns about ECINET and ERONET, digital systems used in electoral-roll management. They argue that insufficient transparency in these systems makes it difficult to scrutinise registration decisions and identify possible errors. These remain allegations before the court. The Election Commission has been asked to respond, and the Supreme Court has not issued a final finding establishing wrongdoing.

The Form 6 dispute and limits of Election Commission power

The latest hearing follows earlier proceedings on October 5, when the court issued notices on separate petitions questioning how major electoral-roll decisions were approved. Those petitions alleged that important decisions were taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without obtaining the agreement of the other commissioners, according to Business Standard.

The court also clarified that it had not approved the modified Form 6 reportedly used during the Bihar revision exercise. However, that observation should not be interpreted as a final ruling declaring the changes unlawful. The central legal question concerns whether administrative directions can introduce additional registration requirements without following procedures established under election law.

Article 324 of the Constitution gives the poll body supervisory authority over elections, but that power operates alongside applicable legislation and rules. The court will examine whether the disputed decisions complied with those requirements.

What voters should know about registration and deletion

For ordinary voters, the distinction between electoral forms matters. Form 6 is used for new voter registration, while Form 7 concerns objections to inclusion or requests for deletion, and Form 8 covers corrections and certain changes to existing entries.

Citizens can check their registration details and access these forms through the official ECI Voters' Services Portal. Those whose names are missing should contact their Electoral Registration Officer to understand the reason and available remedy. The ongoing dispute is particularly important for previously registered voters who may be asked to use a form intended for first-time enrolment.

Why this case goes beyond one voters' list

The Election Commission already possesses legal authority to revise electoral rolls. In its May 27, 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court recognised that authority while addressing safeguards for affected voters. The present litigation focuses on how those powers were exercised, particularly whether the required procedures were followed when changing enrolment requirements or deleting names.

The distinction is important. Authority to revise electoral rolls does not automatically eliminate statutory obligations concerning eligibility verification, transparency and procedural fairness. The case also concerns the relationship between constitutional powers and rules governing voter registration. In related Delhi proceedings, the court has considered complaints that previously registered voters removed during revision were being asked to complete a form requiring them to declare that they had never been enrolled before.

The court is expected to revisit that issue on October 28, according to reports on the separate proceedings.

During the October 15 hearing, the bench also questioned the conduct of opposition leaders who marched to the Supreme Court earlier in the week, stressing that judicial proceedings should not be influenced by public pressure. The SIR litigation therefore involves two distinct questions: whether the electoral-roll process complied with the law and how the court should address related procedural challenges.

For now, no final ruling on the new allegations has been reported. The Commission's response and subsequent hearings will determine whether changes to registration procedures, voter-deletion safeguards or decision-making records are required. For millions of voters, the central concern remains straightforward: electoral rolls must be accurate, but eligible citizens must also have a fair opportunity to challenge decisions affecting their right to vote.