Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Can the Supreme Court Order Prosecution and an SIT Probe Into SIR Voter Deletions?

By Adv. Tarun Choudhury | Supreme Court Advocate

The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has now entered a new and considerably more serious legal phase.

A fresh petition before the Supreme Court seeks criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commission officials, challenges alleged changes made to the voter-registration process, questions the manner in which some decisions were taken within the Election Commission, and asks for an independent, judge-led forensic investigation into the handling of electoral-roll data.

The petition has been filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution. It seeks, among other reliefs, action under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, restoration of the statutory Form 6, preservation of electronic records, and an SIT or judicially supervised investigation into alleged electoral-roll deletions and related decisions.

The allegations are serious.

But the legal position needs to be stated with equal seriousness and precision.

The petition contains allegations and prayers. It is not a judgment. No finding of criminal liability has been made against the Chief Election Commissioner or any other respondent.

That distinction is particularly important because the Supreme Court has already decided one major part of the SIR controversy.

Also Read: TMC Name-Symbol Freeze: Can the Election Commission Freeze a Political Party’s Identity?

On 27 May 2026, in Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 564, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Bihar Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The new petition therefore presents a different question.

It is not simply asking:

“Does the Election Commission have the power to conduct SIR?”

The harder question is

Even if SIR is lawful, can individual decisions taken while implementing it still be unlawful?

That distinction may ultimately determine the significance of this case.

Also Read: If I Were Defending Mamata Banerjee: How I Would Fight to Save TMC’s Name and “Flowers & Grass” Symbol

What Exactly Has Been Placed Before the Supreme Court?

According to the petition and contemporaneous reporting, the challenge concerns a series of alleged decisions and administrative actions connected with the SIR exercise.

The petitioner alleges that certain decisions, guidelines, and software modifications were undertaken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners or contrary to the majority decision-making mechanism prescribed by Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

The petition particularly questions alleged changes to Form 6, the form used for inclusion of a person’s name in the electoral roll.

It alleges that the online registration process was modified to require information concerning an applicant’s or relatives’ connection with an earlier SIR roll and that these changes were introduced without the corresponding statutory amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Key Allegations Raised in the Petition

• Centralization and access to electoral-roll databases.
• ECINet and ERONet.
• The processing of names during SIR.
• Alleged decisions taken despite objections from other election commissioners.
• Approximately 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal allegedly filed in the name of the Election Commission challenging inclusions.
• The large number of names that did not appear in draft electoral rolls during the nationwide revision exercise.

The petitioner seeks much more than a declaration concerning administrative procedure.

The relief sought includes prosecution under Section 32 of the 1950 Act and an independent investigation into the digital and administrative record.

That is what gives the litigation its unusual character.

Also Read: Who Controls American Elections? Trump’s Mail-Ballot Order and Supreme Court Battle

The Crucial Background: The Supreme Court Has Already Upheld SIR

Any serious analysis of this new petition has to begin with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 27 May 2026.

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Court considered the legality of the Bihar SIR and framed questions concerning:

1. The ECI’s authority to conduct SIR.
2. The purpose and proportionality of the exercise.
3. Conformity with the Representation of the People Act and Registration of Electors Rules.
4. The ECI’s ability to examine citizenship-related eligibility for electoral registration.

The Court upheld the ECI’s power to conduct the special revision under Article 324 read with Section 21(3).

Section 21(3) is important because it gives the Commission a special power to direct a revision of an electoral roll “in such manner as it may think fit,” subject to the statutory requirements, including recording reasons.

The Court treated that provision as giving the Commission substantial procedural latitude.

But there is an important qualification.

The judgment did not transform Article 324 into an unrestricted power to disregard legislation.

That principle has been part of Indian constitutional law for decades.

Article 324 Is Powerful—but It Is Not a License to Ignore Parliament

The relationship between Article 324 and parliamentary legislation has been considered by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Court recognized the wide constitutional power of the Election Commission while also making clear that where Parliament has legislated, the Commission must operate within the statutory framework.

The same principle was developed in A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) 2 SCC 656.

The Commission cannot use Article 324 to contradict an express statutory provision.

At the same time, Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628 recognized the breadth of Article 324 and the Commission’s ability to issue directions in areas where legislation does not occupy the field.

The 2026 SIR judgment must be understood against this background.

The Supreme Court accepted that Section 21(3) itself provides statutory authority for a special revision.

That is why a fresh challenge cannot simply proceed on the proposition that SIR is inherently beyond the ECI’s powers.

The legal battle has moved one level deeper.

It concerns implementation.

A Lawful Power Can Still Be Exercised Unlawfully

This is perhaps the most important legal distinction in the entire controversy.

Parliament may give the Election Commission power to conduct a special revision.

The Supreme Court may uphold that power.

But it does not follow that every instruction subsequently issued under that power is automatically lawful.

A constitutional authority can possess jurisdiction and nevertheless exercise it in a manner inconsistent with statute.

That is the principle behind cases such as A.C. Jose.

So the question raised by the Tripathi petition is not necessarily inconsistent with the May 2026 judgment.

It is potentially complementary to it.

The petitioner is effectively asking the Court to examine whether particular acts undertaken during the implementation of SIR went beyond the legal authority that the Court had already recognized.

That brings us to Form 6.

Also Read: Can America Reform the Supreme Court? Latest 5–4 Ruling Reignites Term Limits Debate

Why Form 6 Has Become Such an Important Issue

Form 6 is not merely an ordinary administrative webpage.

It is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for a claim for inclusion in the electoral roll.

That statutory character matters.

The petition alleges that an additional requirement relating to previous SIR rolls and ancestral linkage was introduced into the online registration process without the corresponding amendment to the statutory Rules.

Reports concerning internal ECI correspondence say that Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi objected to the alteration and that Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu subsequently also questioned the legality of the change.

The ECI’s position is materially different.

The Commission has said that the reported objections were part of institutional deliberation and that the final SIR decisions were approved unanimously. It has also disputed the suggestion that selected internal notes tell the complete story of the Commission’s decision-making.

That disagreement presents a very precise legal issue.

Was the Statutory Form 6 Actually Amended?

If the answer is yes, another question follows:

Was the Amendment Made Through the Statutory Mechanism Required by Law?

And there is a third question:

Or was the online declaration merely an administrative component of a special revision process already authorized under Section 21(3)?

Those are not semantic questions.

They go directly to the limits of administrative power.

Section 28 of the RP Act May Become Important

Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 deals with the rule-making power relating to electoral rolls.

The statutory Form 6 exists within that framework.

Therefore, if an authority merely changes the appearance or technological method through which an existing statutory requirement is collected, the legal position may be different from a situation in which the authority effectively creates a new substantive condition for registration.

That distinction may become central.

Suppose an additional online field simply assists the ECI in conducting a lawful SIR.

That would raise one set of questions.

But suppose the field becomes a mandatory condition, which effectively prevents an otherwise eligible citizen from submitting Form 6 unless that person provides information that Parliament or the Rules never required.

That would raise a much more difficult question.

The Supreme Court has not, in its May 2026 judgment, adjudicated this precise alleged Form 6 controversy.

The issue therefore cannot be treated as already settled merely because the broader SIR framework was upheld.

Section 18: Who Actually Decides When Election Commissioners Disagree?

The second major issue is institutional rather than technological.

Section 18 of the 2023 Election Commissioners Act provides the statutory mechanism for dealing with differences within the Election Commission.

The provision contemplates unanimity as far as possible.

But where the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on a matter, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.

This has obvious constitutional significance.

The Chief Election Commissioner is not, simply by virtue of being the CEC, a statutory one-person Election Commission.

The Commission is a multi-member body.

But the existence of disagreement does not automatically invalidate a decision either.

This distinction is crucial.

An internal note asking a question about a proposal is not necessarily the same thing as a formal decision of the Commission.

Similarly, an objection recorded after a decision has already been approved does not necessarily establish that the decision itself was taken contrary to the majority.

What Evidence Would Establish How the Decision Was Taken?

The decisive question is

What happened to the proposal when it became a matter for decision?

That requires evidence.

• Minutes.
• Signed orders.
• File notings.
• Dates.
• Digital approval trails.
• Version histories.
• And, potentially, server records.

The ECI has maintained that the final decisions were unanimous and that the reported objections were part of the ordinary process of institutional deliberation.

The petitioner takes the opposite view.

At this stage, neither position should be converted into a judicial finding.

Section 32: Can the CEC Actually Be Prosecuted Under the RP Act?

This is where the petition encounters one of its most interesting legal hurdles.

Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 deals with breach of official duty in connection with electoral rolls.

It applies to an Electoral Registration Officer, Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, or another person required by or under the Act to perform an official duty relating to the preparation, revision, or correction of an electoral roll or the inclusion or exclusion of an entry.

The provision also contains an important qualification:

The breach must occur without reasonable cause.

That phrase matters.

Criminal liability is not normally established merely because an administrative interpretation is subsequently found to be wrong.

There must be a legally identifiable duty, a breach of that duty, the requisite statutory connection, and absence of reasonable cause.

Section 32(3)

A court cannot take cognizance of the offense unless a complaint is made by order of, or under authority from, the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer of the state concerned.

This creates an unusual problem for the petition.

The petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to direct initiation of prosecution.

But the statutory mechanism itself places the authority to make the complaint within the Election Commission/State Chief Electoral Officer framework.

That makes the prosecution prayer considerably more complicated than simply asking the police to register an FIR.

Does Section 32 Even Apply to the Chief Election Commissioner?

This is an issue that deserves much more attention than it has received in public debate.

Section 32 expressly refers to an ERO, AERO, or “other person required by or under this Act to perform any official duty” of the kind specified.

The petitioner argues that this wider language can cover officials beyond the ordinary ERO structure.

But whether the Chief Election Commissioner falls within that phrase for the specific alleged conduct is not self-evident.

The day-to-day preparation and revision of electoral rolls is performed through the statutory machinery of Electoral Registration Officers under the 1950 Act.

The constitutional functions of the CEC arise principally under Article 324 and the statutory framework governing the Commission.

Therefore, before criminal liability under Section 32 can be considered, the court may have to answer a threshold question:

Was the CEC, in relation to the specific alleged act, a person required by or under the 1950 Act to perform the official duty said to have been breached?

That question should not be overlooked.

Then Comes Section 16 of the 2023 Act

For the prosecution prayer, this may be the most formidable statutory issue.

Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, provides protection against courts entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or Election Commissioner for an act, thing, or word done or spoken while, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty or function.

The provision begins with a non-obstante clause.

In practical terms, that means Section 16 expressly seeks to operate notwithstanding other laws.

That immediately raises a statutory conflict:

Provision	Legal Function Raised by the Petition
Section 32, Representation of the People Act, 1950	Creates an offence concerning breach of official duty in connection with electoral rolls.
Section 16, Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023	Restricts courts from entertaining specified proceedings against Election Commissioners for acts connected with official duty or function.

Which provision governs?

The answer may depend on the character of the alleged act.

The Words “Purporting to Act” May Become Important

Section 16 does not protect only acts ultimately proved to have been lawful.

Its language also refers to a person acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty or function.

That is potentially significant.

Suppose a CEC takes an administrative decision concerning electoral-roll software.

Even if that decision is subsequently challenged as ultra vires, it may still have been undertaken in the purported discharge of an official function.

That would strengthen a Section 16 argument.

The petitioner, however, argues that Section 16 cannot become a shield for conduct having no reasonable connection with official duty and that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as creating an unrestricted personal immunity for the CEC.

This question is not merely theoretical.

The Supreme Court is already examining a challenge to Section 16 in Lok Prahari v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1150 of 2025.

The court issued notice in January 2026 but did not stay the operation of Section 16.

As of 25 September 2026, therefore, Section 16 remains operative.

Any serious analysis of the Tripathi petition has to take that fact into account.

What About the Allegation That 13 Crore Voters Were Deleted?

This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the controversy.

The phrase “13 crore voters deleted” is powerful, but legally it requires qualification.

The reported figure concerns approximately 13.37 crore names that were present in pre-SIR rolls but were not carried into draft rolls across 30 states and union territories.

That is not the same thing as establishing that 13.37 crore eligible Indian citizens were permanently and unlawfully removed from the final electoral rolls.

A draft electoral roll is not necessarily the final electoral roll.

Safeguards in the SIR Process

The SIR procedure contains mechanisms for:

• Claims.
• Objections.
• Hearings.
• Correction.
• Inclusion.
• Deletion.
• And appeals.

That distinction was important to the Supreme Court in its May 2026 judgment.

The Court accepted the availability of claims, objections, and appeals as part of the procedural safeguards surrounding SIR.

Therefore, the legally accurate formulation is:

Approximately 13.37 crore names were absent from the draft rolls—not that the Supreme Court has found 13.37 crore unlawful voter deletions.

That distinction should remain in any responsible article on the subject.

West Bengal Makes the Controversy More Complicated

West Bengal provides an important case study because the revision process generated a substantial number of deletions and subsequent appeals.

The material reported before the Court refers to approximately 27.16 lakh names removed during the West Bengal SIR process, with approximately 22.21 lakh electors subsequently filing appeals seeking restoration.

The new petition also challenges approximately 16.10 lakh appeals allegedly filed in the name of the Election Commission against inclusions ordered by judicial officers.

The petitioner questions who authorized those appeals and whether the necessary institutional approval existed.

Again, there are two separate issues here.

• One concerns the substantive correctness of voter inclusion or exclusion.
• The other concerns the authority to institute or pursue an appeal in the name of the Election Commission.

They should not be conflated.

Even if an individual voter was wrongly excluded, that does not automatically establish criminal misconduct by the ECI.

Conversely, if an appeal was filed without statutory authority, that could raise a separate question concerning institutional legality.

The evidence has to establish which proposition is actually true.

Why the Electronic Record May Matter More Than the Political Controversy

This case could ultimately become a case about digital evidence.

The petition seeks preservation and forensic examination of electoral databases, including ECINet and ERONet.

That request is significant because a digital system can potentially answer questions that public statements cannot.

For example:

• When was a particular Form 6 field introduced?
• Who authorized the software change?
• Which version of the form existed on a particular date?
• Who had access to the relevant database?
• Which official credentials were used?
• Was an instruction issued centrally?
• Did the software reflect a formally approved Commission decision?
• When were particular voter entries altered?
• Was a change later reversed?
• What did the audit logs record?

Those are factual questions.

They cannot be conclusively answered through political speeches or newspaper headlines.

They require the underlying records.

That is why the prayer for preservation of electronic evidence may ultimately be more legally significant than the headline-grabbing prayer for prosecution.

Can the Supreme Court order an SIT?

The Supreme Court unquestionably possesses extraordinary constitutional powers in appropriate cases.

But those powers are exercised cautiously.

In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, the Court used continuing judicial supervision where it found serious concerns about the functioning of investigative agencies.

In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Constitution Bench confirmed that constitutional courts can, in exceptional circumstances, direct investigation by an agency such as the CBI.

But these authorities do not mean that every serious allegation automatically results in an SIT.

The Court normally has to consider whether:

• The allegations have credible prima facie material
• Ordinary investigative mechanisms are inadequate
• The investigation may be compromised
• Constitutional rights are seriously implicated;
• The issue cannot effectively be addressed through ordinary statutory remedies
• And extraordinary judicial intervention is actually necessary.

That distinction is important here.

An SIT is an investigative remedy.

It is not itself a finding that an offense has occurred.

The Petitioner Has a Serious Legal Theory—but So Does the ECI.

The Petitioner’s Legal Theory

The petitioner’s case can be put quite simply.

The argument is that SIR may be lawful, but lawful constitutional power cannot be converted into authority to alter statutory forms, disregard majority decision-making, manipulate digital systems, or impose conditions that Parliament never prescribed.

On this view, the May 2026 SIR judgment does not answer the later implementation questions.

The ECI’s Potential Response

The ECI’s potential response is equally straightforward.

The Commission can argue that the Supreme Court has already upheld the statutory foundation of SIR; that the questioned measures were implementation decisions within Section 21(3); that final Commission decisions were unanimous; that draft-roll exclusions were subject to claims and appeals; and that internal deliberations cannot be selectively presented as proof of institutional illegality.

On Section 32, the Commission can point to the specific statutory class of persons covered and the requirement of a complaint under Section 32(3).

On Section 16, it can point to the express statutory protection for acts done or purportedly done in the discharge of official functions.

These are not trivial answers.

They are legal questions that require evidence and construction of the statutes.

What the Supreme Court May Ultimately Have to Decide

If the petition proceeds, several questions could become central.

1. Can Article 32 Be Invoked? Article 32 jurisdiction is available for enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court has entertained constitutional challenges concerning electoral rolls before. But the petitioner may have to demonstrate that the case presents a genuine constitutional grievance rather than an attempt to bypass the statutory claims, objections, and appeal mechanisms.
2. Can Section 32 Be Applied to the CEC? The Court may have to interpret the expression “other person required by or under this Act to perform any official duty.” That is not an automatic proposition.
3. What Is the Effect of Section 16 of the 2023 Act? This could become the principal obstacle to criminal proceedings against the CEC. Its constitutional validity remains under challenge, but it has not been stayed.
4. What Amounts to a Decision of the Commission Under Section 18? A formal decision, an internal note, a dissent, a file movement, and an operational instruction are not necessarily the same legal thing. The Court may have to reconstruct the decision-making chronology.
5. Was Form 6 Actually Altered? And if so, was it legally amended or merely supplemented by an SIR-specific online declaration?
6. Were Any Decisions Implemented Contrary to a Recorded Majority? If so, Section 18 could become highly significant.
7. Can an SIT Be Ordered? Yes, but only if the court finds the circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify extraordinary investigative intervention.
8. Should Electronic Records Be Preserved? This may be an easier interim question than ordering an SIT. If the Court considers the digital audit trail potentially material, preservation could be ordered without expressing any view on criminal liability.

The Real Battle May Be Over Evidence

There is a temptation in controversies of this kind to reduce the issue to personalities.

That would miss the legal heart of the case.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to determine a criminal allegation merely by counting how many Election Commissioners disagreed with each other.

It will want to know:

• What was the actual decision?
• Who took it?
• Under what statutory authority?
• When was it taken?
• Was the Commission formally consulted?
• Was there a majority decision?
• Was the decision implemented faithfully?
• What did the digital record show?

And, in the case of Section 32:

• What specific statutory duty was breached, by whom, and without what reasonable cause?

Those questions require primary evidence.

What the May 2026 SIR Judgment Does—and Does Not—Settle

The May judgment is therefore neither a complete answer to the new petition nor irrelevant to it.

It settles an important proposition:

The ECI possesses legal authority to conduct a special intensive revision under Article 324 read with Section 21(3), and the Bihar SIR framework challenged before the court was not held unconstitutional.

But it does not necessarily settle every subsequent question concerning:

• a particular Form 6 modification;
• a particular software instruction;
• internal commission decision-making after the judgment;
• access to particular databases;
• individual appeals;
• or alleged acts that were not part of the Bihar litigation.

That is the space in which the new petition operates.

A Constitutional Issue Bigger Than One Officer

There is also a larger institutional question beneath this litigation.

The Election Commission occupies a unique position in India’s constitutional architecture.

It is expected to exercise enormous administrative power while maintaining institutional independence.

That independence must work both ways.

• The Commission must be free from improper external pressure.
• But constitutional independence cannot mean freedom from statutory accountability.

The difficult constitutional balance is therefore not:

“Powerful Election Commission versus weak Election Commission.”

It is:

How does India preserve an independent Election Commission while ensuring that every exercise of electoral power remains traceable to the Constitution, statute, procedure, and evidence?

That is a much more important question.

And it is precisely why the allegations concerning internal decision-making, statutory forms, and digital records deserve to be examined separately from the surrounding political controversy.

Current Legal Position as of 25 September 2026

As things stand today, the position is relatively clear on some issues and genuinely open on others.

Legal Issue	Current Position
ECI power to conduct SIR	The Supreme Court has upheld the ECI’s power to conduct SIR under Article 324 read with Section 21(3) in Association for Democratic Reforms, 2026 INSC 564.
Fresh Tripathi petition	The fresh Tripathi petition challenges alleged implementation decisions, including alleged Form 6 modifications, internal decision-making, and electoral database practices. Those allegations have not been judicially established.
Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act	Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act creates a specific offense concerning breach of official duty in electoral-roll work and contains its own requirement concerning the complaint necessary for cognizance.
Section 18 of the 2023 Act	Section 18 of the 2023 Act provides for majority decision-making where election commissioners differ.
Section 16 of the 2023 Act	Section 16 of the 2023 Act presently remains in force and protects CECs and Election Commissioners against specified civil and criminal proceedings concerning acts done or purportedly done in the discharge of official functions. The Supreme Court is examining a challenge to that protection, but it has not been stayed.
13-crore figure	The frequently cited 13-crore figure should be described accurately: it refers to names absent from draft rolls, not a judicial finding that 13 crore eligible citizens were unlawfully and permanently disenfranchised.

The petition therefore arrives at a particularly interesting point in the evolution of the SIR litigation.

The broad constitutional challenge to SIR has already met the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.

The new challenge asks something narrower:

Was the power recognized by the Court exercised lawfully in every subsequent step?

That question cannot be answered by headlines.

It will have to be answered through statutes, Commission records, statutory forms, decision-making minutes, digital audit trails, and, ultimately, judicial scrutiny.

Until that happens, the proper legal description remains exactly that:

a serious petition raising serious allegations—but allegations that remain to be tested in court.

Need Legal Advice on an Election, Constitutional, or Supreme Court Matter?

When an electoral-roll dispute, Election Commission decision, constitutional issue, or public-law controversy directly affects your legal rights, the first step is understanding exactly what legal remedy is available to you.

Whether your matter involves Election Commission decisions, voter-list inclusion or deletion, SIR-related issues, Article 32 proceedings, constitutional rights, statutory violations, judicial review, public interest litigation, or an urgent Supreme Court matter, a case-specific legal assessment can help you understand the applicable law, evidence, procedure, and possible remedies.

Do not rely only on general information available online when your legal rights, electoral status, or constitutional remedies may be involved. The facts, documents, statutory provisions, and procedural history of each case can materially change the appropriate legal course.

Speak Directly With an Experienced Supreme Court Advocate

Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• 📞 Call: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
• 📧 Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com

For a confidential preliminary consultation, share the essential facts of your matter, the relevant documents or orders, and the relief you are seeking. Your case can then be examined from the perspective of applicable constitutional provisions, statutes, Supreme Court precedents, and available legal remedies.

If Your Matter Is Urgent

If you are facing an imminent deadline, adverse administrative order, electoral-roll issue, constitutional rights violation, or matter requiring urgent judicial intervention, do not wait until the limitation period or procedural opportunity has passed.

Contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury to discuss the legal position and determine the appropriate next step.

Supreme Court Litigation | Constitutional Law | Election Law | Judicial Review | Article 32 Remedies | Public Law

📞 9650499965 | 💬 8851978611 | 📧 admin@legalserviceindia.com

Frequently Asked Questions

Based on the article, these five FAQs target high-value SEO keywords around CEC Gyanesh Kumar, SIR, voter deletions, Article 32, Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, and the proposed SIT inquiry, while keeping the legal position neutral and accurate.

1. Can the Supreme Court order prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar? Under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950?

A petition has sought directions for prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging violations connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. However, the petition is at the litigation stage, and there is presently no judicial finding that CEC Gyanesh Kumar committed an offense under Section 32. The provision also contains specific requirements concerning the nature of the official duty and cognizance of an alleged offense.

2. What Is the Supreme Court Petition Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Regarding SIR Voter Deletions?

The Article 32 petition concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar and SIR voter deletions seeks judicial scrutiny of alleged changes to electoral-roll procedures, including the online Form 6 process, electoral database access, internal decision-making, and alleged voter exclusions. The petition also seeks preservation and forensic examination of electronic records. These are allegations made by the petitioner and have not been established as judicial findings.

3. Can the Supreme Court order an SIT or forensic investigation into the Election Commission SIR records?

The Supreme Court has, in exceptional cases, directed independent investigations where the material before it justified such intervention. The present petition seeks an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, assisted by cybersecurity and forensic experts, to examine electronic records connected with SIR. Whether such an investigation is ordered would depend on the court’s assessment of the pleadings, evidence, statutory framework, and availability of adequate ordinary investigative mechanisms.

4. Were 13 Crore Voters Illegally Deleted From Electoral Rolls During the SIR Process?

The article distinguishes between names absent from draft electoral rolls and final unlawful deletion of eligible voters. Reports cited in the article refer to approximately 13.37 crore names absent from draft rolls across 30 states and union territories. However, the absence of a name from a draft roll does not by itself establish that an eligible voter was permanently or unlawfully deleted. Claims, objections, and appeals form part of the electoral-roll revision process, and the article notes that no official judicial finding had established that all of these exclusions were wrongful.

5. What Did the Supreme Court Decide About the Election Commission’s Power to Conduct SIR in Bihar?

In its 27 May 2026 judgment, 2026 INSC 564, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the Bihar Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Court recognized the Commission’s broad procedural authority for a special revision while also holding that its powers remain subject to the statutory and constitutional framework. The later petition raises separate questions concerning alleged implementation decisions, Form 6 procedures, internal decision-making, and electronic records, which were not determined by that judgment.

Key Takeaways

• A fresh Article 32 petition has been filed in the Supreme Court concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• The petition seeks prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging that certain acts connected with electoral-roll revision and SIR implementation breached statutory duties. These allegations have not been judicially established.
• The petition also seeks an independent SIT and forensic investigation into electoral databases, including alleged changes to ECINet, ERONet, Form 6 procedures, digital records, database access, and related electronic evidence.
• The alleged deletion of approximately 13.37 crore names from draft electoral rolls should not automatically be described as 13.37 crore illegal voter deletions. The figure concerns names reportedly absent from draft rolls; claims, objections, and appeals can affect the final electoral roll.
• Form 6 is central to the dispute. The petition questions whether additional requirements introduced into the online voter-registration process were merely operational changes or amounted to an unauthorized alteration of the statutory electoral-registration framework.
• Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 is an important legal issue. It provides for Commission decision-making and states that where the CEC and other Election Commissioners differ on a matter, the matter is decided by majority.
• The Election Commission has reportedly maintained that differences or observations during internal deliberation are part of the institutional decision-making process and that the final SIR decisions were unanimous. The petition presents a different interpretation of the significance of internal objections.
• Section 16 of the 2023 Act raises a separate question concerning legal proceedings against serving or former Election Commissioners for acts connected with official functions. The petition argues that alleged acts lacking a reasonable nexus with official duty should not receive such protection.
• The Supreme Court’s May 27, 2026 judgment, 2026 INSC 564, upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct Bihar SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• The Bihar SIR judgment does not necessarily resolve every later dispute concerning SIR implementation. Questions concerning alleged Form 6 modifications, internal Commission decision-making, electronic records, database access, and West Bengal electoral-roll proceedings raise issues that require separate examination.
• The Supreme Court has previously recognized limits on the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324. Decisions including Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai establish that constitutional powers cannot simply override an area where Parliament has occupied the field through legislation.
• The present legal controversy is therefore not simply whether SIR is constitutionally permissible. A central question is whether particular administrative, technological, and procedural steps taken during its implementation complied with the Representation of the People Act, electoral rules, and the statutory framework governing the Election Commission.
• The final outcome will depend heavily on documentary and electronic evidence, including Commission orders, file notings, meeting minutes, Form 6 versions, software change records, access logs, database records, and authorization documents.

Summary

Supreme Court SIR Petition: A fresh Article 32 petition concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commission SIR, alleged voter deletions, Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, Form 6 changes, Section 18 decision-making, and an SIT/forensic inquiry raise important questions about electoral-roll revision and the limits of Election Commission powers. The allegations remain subject to judicial examination.

Primary Authorities

• Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 564, judgment dated 27 May 2026.
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
• A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, (1984) 2 SCC 656.
• Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226.
• State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950—particularly Sections 13B, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, and 32.
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960—particularly Rule 13 and the provisions governing claims, objections, deletion, and appeals.
• Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023—particularly Sections 16, 17, and 18.
• Lok Prahari v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1150 of 2025—challenge to Section 16 of the 2023 Act.
• Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India—fresh petition concerning alleged SIR-related decisions, Form 6 changes, Section 32 prosecution, and SIT investigation, as reported on 25 September 2026.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965