Supreme Court to Hear Plea Challenging the Election Commission's SIR Decisions
The Supreme Court listed for hearing a petition filed by the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and 12 other opposition leaders. It challenges decisions taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana is to hear the matter. The same bench is already hearing other petitions about how the Commission took its SIR decisions.
The petition asks the court to call for the ECI's internal records, and to set up an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts, to audit deletions and changes in the voter-list databases ECINET and ERONET.
It seeks an interim suspension of the ongoing SIR, booth-wise lists of deleted voters with reasons, and a direction that no name be removed without notice and a fair hearing.
It asks the court to examine whether the decisions follow Article 324, the 2023 law on the appointment and service of Election Commissioners, and the Supreme Court's ruling in the T.N. Seshan case.
Related petitions say the two Election Commissioners recorded about 14 written objections to SIR steps between October 2025 and August 2026. These are claims made in the petitions; the court has not ruled on them.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls
An electoral roll is the official list of voters in a constituency, and only people on it can vote. A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a very detailed check in which the list is rebuilt almost from scratch: officials visit every house, collect forms from voters and check their documents. It is done under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which lets the ECI order a special revision at any time. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of each constituency is the legal authority who decides whether a name is added or removed.
The petition does not question the SIR as a legal tool, which the court has already upheld. It questions how deletions were made through the central databases and asks for proof that each voter got notice and a hearing, as the law and earlier judgments require.
Election Commission of India (Article 324): Powers and Functions
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is the constitutional body that runs elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Article 324 gives it "superintendence, direction and control" of preparing voter lists and conducting these elections. It has a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and, at present, two Election Commissioners (ECs). Courts have called Article 324 a "reservoir of power", but the ECI must still act within the laws made by Parliament.
The petition asks the court to test whether the ECI's SIR decisions stayed within its Article 324 powers and the RP Act, and whether they were taken by the Commission as a body rather than by one member.
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): The Multi-Member Election Commission
T.N. Seshan v. Union of India is a 1995 Supreme Court judgment that settled how a multi-member Election Commission must work. A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the law that made the Commission a three-member body. It ruled that the CEC and the ECs are on an equal footing in decision-making, and that when they disagree, the majority view wins. The CEC acts as chairman, but he cannot override the other two.
The petition relies on this case to argue that SIR decisions taken over the written objections of two Election Commissioners would go against the majority rule. The court will have to decide how the Seshan principle and Section 18 apply to these decisions.
Appointment and Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners
Article 324 says the President appoints the CEC and the ECs, subject to any law made by Parliament. For decades there was no such law, and the government of the day chose them. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 now lays down how they are selected, how long they serve and how the Commission conducts its business.
The petition asks whether the ECI's SIR decisions followed the 2023 Act, especially its rule on how the three members take decisions together.
- Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V. Mohana
- Petitioners: the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and 12 other opposition leaders
- Reliefs sought: ECI records; audit by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge; interim suspension of the SIR; booth-wise deletion lists with reasons; no deletion without notice and hearing
- Databases named: ECINET (launched 22 January 2026; joins 40+ ECI apps) and ERONET (electoral-roll module)
- Legal tests raised: Article 324; CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 (Section 18, majority rule); T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995)
- SIR power: Section 21(3), Representation of the People Act, 1950; upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026
- Related petitions claim about 14 recorded objections by two ECs between October 2025 and August 2026 (not decided by the court)