A petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders against alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) will not be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the registry flagged 14 defects, including a ₹ 220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine of the 11 petitioners.
The filing came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively, but indicated that their concerns could be raised through judicial proceedings and assured an expeditious hearing if they approached the court. The mobilisation came amid heightened tensions over the SIR and demands for the resignation of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The legal move followed a march, billed by the Opposition as a “March for Democracy”, which was stopped by police barricades on Bhagwan Dass Road, around 600 metres from the Supreme Court . Gandhi on Monday evening personally appeared at the Supreme Court to file the petition, joined by Kharge and nine other opposition leaders in a show of opposition unity over the electoral roll revision exercise and the alleged unilateral functioning of the poll panel.
The petition, filed through advocate S Prasanna, seeks an independent, time-bound investigation into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Kumar, including the June 2025 decision to undertake the SIR. It names the ECI, Kumar and the two other election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, as respondents.
The Opposition leaders said they have approached the top court in discharge of their public duties to “protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage” and to ensure the electoral process remains free, fair, transparent and accountable. The petitioners said that they do not seek to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR, but raised concerns whether the safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court, and the requirement that ECI act as a collective constitutional institution have actually been complied with in the implementation of the exercise.
