Here are the ten directions Rahul Gandhi has sought from Supreme Court in his petition on SIR

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Congress President LOP in Rajya Sabha have moved the Supreme Court  challenging large-scale voter deletions and alleged irregularities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The plea has sought production of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) internal records on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, an independent audit of voter deletions and an interim suspension of the exercise across States.

The petition alleges that the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (CEC) exercised the Commission's collective powers without the knowledge, approval or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

The petition has sought the following directions from the Court to the respondent authorities:

🔹Production of the Election Commission's files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by Election Commissioners on disputed SIR decisions, along with ECINET and ERONET access logs

🔹 The complete file recording the June 24, 2025 decision to launch nationwide SIR

🔹 Examination of whether the decisions complied with Article 324, Section 18 of the 2023 CEC Act and the TN Seshan ruling; quashing of any decision taken without lawful authority

🔹 Action against those responsible for breaches, including under Section 32 of the RP Act, 1950

🔹 Direction that every SIR decision be taken and minuted as per Section 18 till the case is decided

🔹 Online Form 6 to conform to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 unless the Rules are amended

🔹 Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit SIR deletions and access to electoral-roll databases, and to review EVM processes against global best practices

🔹 Booth-wise publication of deleted names with reasons and gender and age breakdown, plus a functional restoration mechanism

🔹 No deletion without notice and hearing; eligible persons in Punjab and other poll-bound States to be allowed to seek inclusion till the last date

🔹 Interim suspension of SIR across all States

The petition relies on an Indian Express investigation of September 23, which reported that the two Election Commissioners recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over ten months to the decisions taken by CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

The ECI's stand is that its decisions were unanimous though the media reports based on records say otherwise. The question can be answered only by examining the Commission's records, the plea states.

Citing Article 324, Section 18 of the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners and the Constitution Bench ruling in TN Seshan case, the petition says the CEC does not enjoy superior status over the other Commissioners.

"The issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure," it states.

The petition points to an RTI reply in which the ECI's First Appellate Authority recorded that no decision had been taken to start a nationwide SIR in 2025. This, it says, "appears irreconcilable" with paragraph 10 of the ECI's June 24, 2025 order.

It also challenges the July 2026 modification of the online Form 6, which added a declaration on whether the applicant or their relatives figured in an earlier SIR roll, without amending the 1960 Rules.

Form 6 is to be filled by people seeking to register as voters for the first time. It is being used by the ECI during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various States.

The modified Form 6 has been at the centre of the controversy after the ECI introduced an additional declaration requiring applicants seeking inclusion in the electoral roll to state whether their own name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier SIR-era electoral roll.

Critics have argued that this could create an additional hurdle for first-time voters, particularly those whose families were not on the old rolls, and that the ECI could not alter a statutory form without following the procedure for amending the relevant rules. 

The requirement had also reportedly drawn objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The ECI said, in a September 26 press note, that the additional declaration attached to Form 6 during the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court on October 5 said that it had not approved the same since the issue concerning the modification had never come up before it.

On the ECINET and ERONET databases, the petition argues that centralised control by the ECI's IT division curtails the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers.

"Such centralisation is ultra vires and subverts the decentralised architecture safeguarding free and fair elections," it says.

Citing Punjab, where the draft roll reportedly showed about 20.66 lakh fewer names, the petition flags bulk Form 7 objections, alleged forged names, targeting of specific communities and women, and deletions without notice and hearing.

The petition clarifies that it does not seek to reopen the Supreme Court's May 27. judgment upholding SIR, stating that its concern "is narrower and distinct."

The petition was filed through advocate Prasanna S.