PIL Puts 14 ECI Actions Under Bombay HC Lens, Flags Two Commissioners’ Dissent

Petition also seeks restoration of deleted voter names, transparency in Maharashtra’s Special Intensive Revision exercise and safeguards against exclusion of eligible electors

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Mumbai, September 24, 2026: A writ petition proposed before the Bombay High Court has challenged 14 decisions and administrative actions attributed to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that several of them were taken despite recorded objections from the other two Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The petition, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court, raises substantial questions concerning the constitutional and statutory administration of electoral rolls, the registration of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, access to the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

The challenge is founded on the contention that decisions affecting the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls cannot be implemented in a manner that bypasses the institutional participation of members of the constitutional election authority.

The petitioner alleges that the disputed measures reflect a departure from the principles of collective decision-making, transparency and statutory compliance that are central to the conduct of free and fair elections.

Challenge To 14 Decisions and Actions

According to the petition, the 14 impugned actions were issued or implemented during the preceding ten months.

The issues said to be covered include changes to Form 6, used for the enrolment of new voters’ deletion and subsequent restoration of names from electoral rolls; appeals against orders restoring voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and the custody, operation and accessibility of the electronic database containing electoral-roll information.

The petition relies, among other things, on reported written objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The objections allegedly questioned whether certain measures could lawfully be undertaken without their knowledge or approval. One of the matters concerns the introduction of additional requirements in Form 6, including questions linking an applicant’s details with the electoral roll prepared during an earlier SIR exercise.

The petitioners contend that such alterations could not have been introduced administratively without following the procedure prescribed under the governing rules.

The reported objections described the changes as unauthorised and illegal and called for their immediate withdrawal.

The plea further refers to concerns regarding what has been described as the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.

It is alleged that the access and operational autonomy ordinarily available to statutory authorities at the State and constituency levels may have been restricted, thereby affecting the role of EROs in maintaining and revising electoral rolls.

The two Election Commissioners are also reported to have raised concerns with the Cabinet Secretary regarding changes in the allocation of responsibilities connected with the information-technology infrastructure supporting electoral-roll management.

According to the allegations referred to in the petition, those changes were made without their prior knowledge and had the effect of reducing an additional layer of institutional oversight.

Reliefs Sought by the Petitioner

The principal relief sought is the quashing of the 14 decisions and actions impugned in the petition.

The petition also seeks restoration of the names of voters allegedly deleted from the electoral rolls in violation of law or without adequate procedural safeguards.

In addition, the petitioner has sought an injunction or direction to halt the Maharashtra SIR exercise until its legal basis, methodology and safeguards are properly disclosed and examined.

A further prayer seeks postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly elections until electoral rolls compliant with constitutional and statutory requirements have been prepared, finalised and approved.

The petition also proposes the constitution of an independent judicial committee to inquire into the alleged irregularities and examine whether the impugned measures were adopted in accordance with the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate.

The petitioner maintains that the alleged defects have consequences extending beyond administrative inconvenience.

It argues that wrongful deletion or exclusion from the electoral roll may infringe the guarantee of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution and impair the constitutional scheme of adult suffrage reflected in Article 326.

The plea states that the ECI is required to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach while discharging its electoral-roll functions, but that such flexibility cannot be used to dispense with mandatory safeguards or dilute the legal rights of eligible voters.

Separate Petition on Maharashtra’s SIR Exercise

A separate writ petition has also been filed before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court challenging aspects of the constitutional validity and implementation of the SIR exercise in Maharashtra.

The petition has been instituted on behalf of two Mumbai-based businessmen through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi.

Significantly, the petitioners in that matter have clarified that they do not seek an order stopping the SIR programme.

Their limited challenge is directed towards obtaining disclosure of the order and recorded reasons under which the exercise is being conducted, together with details of its methodology, legal foundation and safeguards for affected voters.

The petition argues that the ECI may undertake a limited electoral assessment, but cannot conclusively determine a person’s citizenship. Where a genuine doubt regarding citizenship arises, the matter, according to the plea, must be placed before the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the electoral consequence should remain subject to that determination.

The petition further alleges that, although the instructions issued for the Maharashtra exercise do not contemplate the collection of documents at the enumeration stage, Booth Level Officers have allegedly been asking citizens to furnish supporting documents while accepting Enumeration Forms.

It accordingly seeks directions to prevent the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and to restore names deleted without lawful authority or adequate notice.

Matters Expected to Be Mentioned Before the Court

Both petitions are expected to be mentioned before the respective Bombay High Court Benches on September 28, 2026.

At this stage, the allegations contained in the petitions remain matters for judicial consideration.

The filing or mentioning of a writ petition does not, by itself, amount to a finding that the Election Commission or any individual office-holder has acted unlawfully.

The proceedings are nevertheless significant because they place before the High Court questions concerning institutional decision-making within the ECI, the legal limits of administrative changes to electoral-roll procedures, the security and control of voter databases, and the safeguards required before an eligible elector’s name is removed from the rolls.