Petition in Supreme Court Targets CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over Electoral Roll Disputes, Seeks Forensic Audit

A fresh legal challenge over the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has reached the Supreme Court, with a petition seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations in the handling of voter data and electoral-roll procedures.

The petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution. It seeks directions to declare decisions, guidelines and software modifications allegedly undertaken without the concurrence or majority opinion of the Election Commission as unconstitutional and invalid.

What does the petition allege?

According to the petition, several decisions associated with the SIR exercise were allegedly taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The plea refers to reported objections by the two commissioners concerning decisions related to electoral-roll revision, including changes to Form 6, which is used for voter registration. It alleges that the form was modified on the ECINet/ERONet platforms to seek information concerning an applicant's or relatives' presence in an earlier SIR roll.

The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to direct the restoration of the statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and allow eligible citizens to register under the original statutory requirements.

Demand for forensic audit of electoral databases

A major part of the plea concerns the functioning of the Election Commission's digital electoral-roll systems.

The petitioner has sought an independent judicial inquiry or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and information-technology experts. The proposed investigation would conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases and examine how electoral-roll changes were carried out.

The petition alleges that around 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States and Union Territories during the SIR exercise. This is an allegation made in the petition and is not a finding by the Supreme Court.

West Bengal appeals also mentioned

The plea also refers to 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal challenging the inclusion of voters, alleging that these were filed in the name of the Election Commission without the required statutory sanction.

It further seeks an examination of the circumstances surrounding these appeals and identification of responsibility if any irregularity is established.

Prosecution sought under Representation of the People Act

The petitioner has also sought directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and other officials who may be found responsible for alleged breaches of official duty.

The petition names the Union of India and Election Commission of India, among others, as respondents.

Election Commission's position

The legal challenge comes amid reports of disagreements within the poll panel over certain SIR-related decisions. The Election Commission has maintained that decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.

The Supreme Court's consideration of the petition, and any subsequent judicial findings, will determine whether the allegations raised in the plea warrant further investigation or other legal action.

Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India
Diary No.: 59734/2026