New Delhi, Oct 15: The Supreme Court has sought the Election Commission of India’s response to a petition by Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, while reserving scrutiny of one petitioner’s conduct for the next hearing.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the poll body on Thursday and directed that the petition be heard alongside other pending challenges to the validity of the SIR exercise in various states.
The Bench said the respondents must receive notice, either through a representative accepting it on behalf of the Election Commission or through service by the petitioners. It did not identify the petitioner whose conduct it intends to examine, but said its decision to entertain notice concerning that individual would remain provisional until he explains his conduct at the next hearing.
The petition, filed on October 12, alleges large-scale deletions of voters and irregularities in the revision exercise. The petitioners include Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress leader Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, along with other INDIA bloc leaders.
The respondents named in the plea include the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The legal challenge follows an Opposition march to the Supreme Court to protest alleged electoral irregularities and the SIR process.
Separately, advocate Vineet Jindal has approached Chief Justice Surya Kant seeking consideration of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings over a now-deleted social media post by Congress Kerala targeting the CJI and the Opposition’s protest march.
Jindal has also requested an examination of a reported demonstration at the Supreme Court registry during the filing of the Opposition leaders’ petition. He urged the court to determine whether anyone entered a restricted area without authorisation, breached security instructions or obstructed the court’s functioning.
He sought preservation and examination of relevant CCTV footage, access-control logs, security deployment records and other evidence before any conclusion is reached.
The issue was raised before the CJI on Tuesday, when senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned it before the Bench. After Surya Kant asked whether the matter appeared on the mentioning list, Bhatia said it did not. The CJI then asked him to mention it the following day.
The Supreme Court has not identified the petitioner whose conduct it intends to examine, and Jindal’s requests remain pleas for consideration rather than findings by the court.
