SC defers Rahul Gandhi-led plea against ECI's SIR electoral roll revision
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has deferred Rahul Gandhi's challenge to the ECI's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls until after Diwali, while a parallel contempt petition against Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle adds a sharp judicial-political dimension to proceedings that already pit the opposition bloc directly against the poll panel.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 27 October 2026 deferred the hearing on a plea by Rahul Gandhi and 12 INDIA bloc leaders challenging the ECI's SIR exercise.
The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant , gave petitioners 10 days to respond to the ECI's affidavit; the ECI may also file an additional affidavit in the same period.
The petition alleges large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in electoral roll revision across states.
Respondents include Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi .
The SCBA has filed a criminal contempt petition against Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over remarks targeting the CJI; notices were issued on 16 October .
The matter will be taken up after the Diwali vacation .
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, deferred the hearing on a petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The deferral means the case will next be heard after the Diwali vacation.
Key Directions from the Bench
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana directed the petitioners to file their response to the ECI's affidavit within 10 days. The bench also granted the poll panel the liberty to file an additional affidavit within the same period, if required.
The Supreme Court had first issued notice to the ECI on 15 October, directing that the petition be tagged with other pending pleas already before it that challenge the validity of the SIR exercise across various states.
What the Petition Alleges
The plea, jointly filed by Rahul Gandhi and 12 opposition leaders, alleges large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the manner in which the electoral roll revision is being conducted. The respondents named in the matter include the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Sanjay Raut Controversy
The proceedings have been shadowed by a separate controversy involving Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut. The CJI-led bench had indicated it would examine Raut's conduct at the next hearing, later clarifying that his petition would be entertained provisionally, subject to him explaining his remarks concerning CJI Surya Kant.
The controversy arose after the CJI declined to meet Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to receive a memorandum on the SIR exercise, observing that such a meeting would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Raut's public remarks about the CJI following that refusal triggered a sharp reaction from the judiciary.
Contempt Proceedings
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a criminal contempt petition against Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over their remarks targeting the CJI. The apex court issued notice to both on 16 October, directing them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
This is a developing legal confrontation that touches on judicial independence, electoral integrity, and the limits of political speech — all to be revisited once the Supreme Court reconvenes after the Diwali break.
Point of View
Which is precisely what the opposition fears. The contempt thread involving Sanjay Raut is a distraction the INDIA bloc can ill afford: it shifts the narrative from voter deletions to judicial propriety, and gives the government a convenient counter-story. The CJI's refusal to receive a political memorandum was constitutionally sound, but the optics of a judicial system simultaneously hearing the SIR challenge and threatening contempt against one of the petitioners' allies will invite scrutiny. The real test comes after Diwali — whether the bench addresses the substantive allegation of large-scale deletions, or gets consumed by the conduct controversy.
NationPress
27 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
The Special Intensive Revision is a process by which the Election Commission of India reviews and updates voter rolls, adding new eligible voters and removing those who are ineligible or deceased. The opposition has alleged that the current SIR exercise has resulted in large-scale, irregular voter deletions across multiple states.
Why has Rahul Gandhi challenged the SIR in the Supreme Court?
Rahul Gandhi, along with 12 other INDIA bloc leaders, filed a petition alleging irregularities and large-scale voter deletions in the ECI's ongoing electoral roll revision. They have challenged the manner in which the SIR is being conducted and named the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and two Election Commissioners as respondents.
When will the Supreme Court next hear the case?
The Supreme Court has deferred the matter until after the Diwali vacation. In the interim, petitioners have 10 days to respond to the ECI's affidavit, and the ECI may file an additional affidavit in the same period.
What is the contempt petition against Sanjay Raut about?
The Supreme Court Bar Association filed a criminal contempt petition against Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over remarks they made about CJI Surya Kant. The controversy followed the CJI's refusal to meet Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to receive a memorandum on the SIR exercise. The apex court issued show-cause notices to both on 16 October.
Why did the CJI refuse to meet Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge?
CJI Surya Kant declined to receive a memorandum on the SIR exercise from opposition leaders, observing that holding a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
