Plea Filed in SC Seeks Judicial Inquiry into SIR Roll Changes, Criminal Action Against Chief Election Commissioner
Article 32 petition alleges statutory breaches in the electoral-roll revision process, challenges decisions said to have been taken without the Election Commission’s majority concurrence, and seeks preservation of digital records.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A petition before the Supreme Court has sought criminal-prosecution proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and certain Election Commission officials over alleged irregularities connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, asks the Court to direct the competent authority to register complaints and consider prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The provision concerns specified breaches of official duty in the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.
The plea also names Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and any other officials found responsible.
The allegations in the petition concern, among other things, an asserted unauthorised alteration of Form 6, the centralisation of electoral-roll databases, the alleged failure to restore eligible electors through the ECINet system, and appeals said to have been filed in West Bengal in the Election Commission’s name against the inclusion of voters.
The petitioner puts the number of those appeals at 16.10 lakh.
Challenge To Decisions Allegedly Made Without Commission Concurrence
A central issue raised in the plea is whether decisions, directions and software changes concerning the SIR were made without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners or contrary to their views.
The petitioner seeks a declaration that such measures are unconstitutional and without legal authority, and asks that they be set aside.
The plea relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
It argues that where the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners differ, the matter is to be resolved in accordance with the majority view.
In support of its challenge, the petition refers to objections reportedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi regarding decisions connected with the SIR.
It specifically alleges that both objected in May 2026 to a change in Form 6, with the objection being that a statutory form could not be altered without a corresponding amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The petition further claims that, despite those objections, the online form was changed to seek information about an applicant’s or relatives’ presence on an earlier SIR roll. It cites a subsequent record attributed to Sandhu describing the change as unauthorised and illegal.
These matters are presented as the petitioner’s case and have not been established by a judicial finding in the report of the filing.
Independent Investigation and Digital-Record Preservation Sought
The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to constitute an independent judicial inquiry commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with cybersecurity and information-technology experts on the team.
The proposed investigation would, among other tasks, conduct a forensic examination of the ECINet and ERONet systems.
The plea alleges that approximately 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States and Union Territories during the SIR exercise and seeks an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding those deletions.
It also asks investigators to identify those responsible for the alleged filing of appeals in West Bengal against the inclusion of voters.
The requested interim and final reliefs include restoration of the version of Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 setting aside the alleged online-form modifications; and quashing the 16.10 lakh appeals said to have been filed before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals in the Election Commission’s name.
The petitioner has also sought preservation of relevant server logs, databases, communications and metadata relating to ECINet and ERONet from October 1, 2025, pending investigation.
The Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Cabinet Secretary, Maneesh Garg and Seema Khanna have been named as respondents. The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi.
Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India Diary No.: 59734/2026
