The Supreme Court assured on Tuesday (October 27, 2026) it will "examine everything," even as petitioners, including Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, voiced an "innocuous, non-invasive" request to the court to either direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to preserve or call for the "complete records and decisions" concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27, 2026) it will “examine everything,” even as petitioners, including Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, voiced an “innocuous, non-invasive” request to the court.
CEC row Updates: SC defers hearing on pleas against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, decisions during SIR
The demand to safeguard the records was made by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represents Mr. Gandhi along with advocate S. Prasanna, before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which deferred the case for hearing after 10 days.
The rescheduling of the case happened after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for lead petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, along with other petitioners like Shailendra Mani Tripathi, sought time to respond to an Election Commission (EC) affidavit to their petitions.
The affidavit saw the EC put up a united face, with Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi speaking in one voice that their SIR decisions were in line with the law, and that any attempt to restrain the functioning of the CEC was illegal.
The EC said a CEC cannot be removed, except in accordance with the procedure and on the grounds for the ouster of a Supreme Court judge.
The affidavit was in response to a legal battle which began with protests on the streets of the national capital for the removal of CEC Kumar. The agitations had graduated into the filing of multiple petitions, ranging from ordinary individuals and activists to Opposition leaders led by Mr. Gandhi, in the Supreme Court.
Media reports preceding the public protests had alleged friction within the EC, with both Election Commissioners complaining about procedural irregularities, coupled with the unilateral and authoritarian conduct of the CEC during the mammoth SIR exercise. The SIR has excluded approximately 13 crore voters from the electoral rolls.
"The affidavit talks about decisions, consultations, whether unanimous decisions were taken, etc... Whereas we have only an innocuous, non-invasive demand... To file the records before Your Lordships or pass a direction to preserve the files," Mr. Singhvi submitted.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the EC, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government, and questioned the petitioners' request to the court.
"We will examine everything," Chief Justice Kant responded to Mr. Singhvi, listing the case for mid-November 2026.
The court separately issued notice on a petition filed by All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Dola Sen, represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, against the functioning of the EC and the "tampering" of Form 6.
"They (EC) issued a press note that the Supreme Court judgment in the Bihar SIR authorised the tampering of Form 6... Please see the audacity of this institution, which is justifying the tampering of Form 6," Dr. Guruswamy submitted.
The senior counsel said the EC affidavit, filed on October 26, 2026, "accepts many of the charges we are making."
The affidavit has denied charges that Form 6 was changed. It has justified that the additional declaration form provided alongside Form 6 was not a "part" of the statutory form.
Voters deleted from the electoral roll during the SIR exercise have to fill up their Form 6, as well as "map" their previous electoral roll entries to those of their parents and grandparents in the additional declaration form.
The affidavit also submitted that officials with the West Bengal Chief Electoral Officer had filed appeals against the inclusion of deleted voters. Petitioners have contended that these appeals, numbering over 16 lakh in West Bengal, were choking the Appellate Tribunals.
"There is a lot to be said on this affidavit," Mr. Vikas Singh submitted.
Mr. Maninder Singh said the submission made on behalf of Ms. Sen's petition was "rhetoric meant for some other purpose," even as Mr. Mehta said the court should not be made into a political forum.
The court gave the EC liberty to file any supplementary affidavit, if necessary.