PIL in Supreme Court seeks probe into ECI functioning, 13 crore voter deletions
Synopsis
A PIL before the Supreme Court has put India's Election Commission under the judicial spotlight, alleging the deletion of 13 crore voter names, unlawful changes to Form 6, and at least 14 written dissents by two Election Commissioners against their own chief — a rare and constitutionally significant fracture at the heart of India's electoral machinery.
Key Takeaways
Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a PIL in the Supreme Court on 25 September 2026 seeking an independent probe into the ECI .
The petition alleges deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls and unlawful changes to Form 6 .
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded written dissents on at least 14 occasions between November 2025 and August 2026 .
The petition challenges a 28 July administrative order by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg , alleging it bypassed full Commission approval.
The ECI denied an institutional 'rupture', stating that internal objections are normal within a multi-member constitutional body.
The Supreme Court is yet to schedule the petition for hearing; the case could have far-reaching implications for electoral governance.
A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation into alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including the purported deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls. The writ petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, targets decisions allegedly taken under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the approval of the full Commission.
Key Allegations in the Petition
The PIL seeks directions for a probe into the alleged deletion of 13 crore voter names from electoral rolls, the restoration of the original Form 6 used for voter registration, and the reversal of decisions allegedly made without full Commission approval. The petition relies on documents and media reports published on 23 September concerning written objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against decisions taken within the poll body.
According to the petition, the two Election Commissioners recorded written dissents on at least 14 occasions between November 2025 and August 2026, covering objections related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, IT systems, and administrative decisions.
Changes to Form 6 and IT System Concerns
The petition alleged that the ECI's IT division introduced changes to Form 6 by making the 'last SIR' linkage mandatory for first-time voters — reportedly without any amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It further alleged that the statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were curtailed through centralisation of electoral roll management under the Director General of IT.
The plea cited the case of 97 electors in Goa whose names EROs were allegedly unable to restore despite finding them eligible, because the ECINet system lacked a 'rollback/reversal' facility. In West Bengal, the petition claimed that 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the ECI's name against citizens whose names had been restored by judicial officers during the SIR exercise.
The Disputed Administrative Order
The petitioner has challenged an administrative order issued on 28 July by Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, alleging it altered the IT oversight structure without the full Commission's approval. Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi subsequently wrote to Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, describing the order as a violation of Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, according to the petition.
Legal Arguments and Scope of Protection
The petition argued that if the alleged manipulation of electoral rolls were established, such acts would fall outside the scope of official duty and would therefore not attract the statutory protection available to election commissioners for acts done in discharge of their official functions. It has sought directions for an investigation and appropriate criminal proceedings against those found responsible, if allegations are proven.
ECI's Response
The ECI, in a press note issued on 23 September, rejected the characterisation of internal differences as an institutional 'rupture'. The poll body stated that written objections and internal notes are established mechanisms within a multi-member constitutional body, and that decisions are governed by the 2023 law and resolved through majority decisions. The PIL comes amid an ongoing public debate over reported differences within the three-member Commission.
The Supreme Court is yet to list the petition for hearing. The outcome could have significant implications for the institutional autonomy and internal governance of India's apex electoral authority.
Point of View
Not routine procedural disagreement. The ECI's counter-narrative of 'established mechanisms' sidesteps the specific allegation: that an administrative order altered IT oversight without collegial sanction. If the Supreme Court admits this petition and orders even a preliminary inquiry, it could set a transformative precedent for how accountability is enforced within constitutionally independent bodies — a question far more consequential than any single election outcome.
NationPress
25 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the PIL filed in the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of India?
It is a writ petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking an independent investigation into alleged irregularities in the ECI's functioning, including the deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls, unlawful changes to Form 6, and decisions allegedly taken without full Commission approval. The petition was filed on 25 September 2026.
What is the allegation about 13 crore voter names being deleted?
The petition alleges that approximately 13 crore names were removed from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. It further claims that Electoral Registration Officers were unable to restore eligible voters' names in some cases because the ECINet system lacked a rollback facility.
Why did Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi raise dissents?
According to the petition, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written dissents on at least 14 occasions between November 2025 and August 2026, over issues including SIR procedures, IT systems, and an administrative order dated 28 July that they argued violated Section 18 of the CEC Act, 2023.
What did the ECI say in response to the controversy?
The ECI, in a press note dated 23 September 2026, rejected characterisations of the internal differences as a 'rupture', stating that written objections are established mechanisms within a multi-member constitutional body and that decisions are governed by the 2023 law and resolved through majority votes.
What happens next in the Supreme Court case?
The Supreme Court has not yet listed the PIL for hearing. If admitted, the court could direct a probe into the alleged irregularities. The case could set a significant precedent for judicial oversight of constitutionally independent institutions like the ECI.
