A public interest litigation petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in light of Indian Express report that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had taken many decisions on special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls despite two of the three Election Commissioners objecting to such decisions.

The plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has sought a direction to declare all decisions taken by the ECI without the concurrence of majority of Election Commissioners as illegal and void.

"Declare all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Respondent No. 3 (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners (under Section 18 of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023) as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio," the plea has prayed.

The petitioner has also sought action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (Information Technology) of ECI Seema Khanna.

"Issue appropriate directions to the competent statutory authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against Respondents No. 3, 5, 6 and all other officers found guilty of deliberate breach of official duty," the plea has requested.

As per the petition, official files revealed that over a 10-month period (November 2025 – August 2026), two Election Commissioners—Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi—formally recorded written dissents and objections on at least 14 separate occasions (including four times on a single day) against unilateral, unauthorized, and illegal decisions taken and executed in the name of the Commission.

The petitioner has also sought a probe by a judicial inquiry commission or a special investigation team (SIT) into the deletion of 13 crore voters from electoral rolls during the SIR.

Pertinently, the plea has also sought restoration of statutory Form 6 as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and permit all eligible adults to register as voters on the basis of original statutory requirements.

The plea has listed a slew of acts done by CEC in collusion with official as "illegal".

As per the plea, the statutory form 6 (which is the official application form used for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll and meant for individuals registering as new voters or those shifting to a different constituency) was unilaterally altered by the CEC introducing a mandatory ancestral condition ("last SIR linkage") for first-time young voters.

This was done without legislative authority or amendment of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. This action was explicitly branded as "unauthorised and illegal" by a majority of the Election Commissioners.

Further, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were deprived of their statutory authority under Section 13B, 22, and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and electoral roll management was centralised under the Director General of IT (DG-IT).

There was an intentional software omission of a "rollback" facility by which EROs were locked out from restoring 97 eligible electors in Goa despite judicial directions, it has been contended.

The Chief Electoral Officer, Goa, sent eight consecutive communications to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Gyanesh Bharti and DG-IT Seema Khanna requesting the activation of a "rollback/reversal" feature in ECINet, as EROs found 97 electors fully eligible. However, the ECI-IT division ignored the requests, disenfranchising all 97 citizens, it has been alleged.

As regards the contentious West Bengal SIR, the plea states that over 16.10 lakh appeals were filed by ECI against citizens before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals.

These appeals were filed challenging the inclusion of electors who after being initially excluded from the rolls during SIR were subsequently restored by judicial officers.

According to the petition, these appeals were filed without the knowledge, authorisation, or sanction of the other two Election Commissioners or the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal.

As per the plea

"In August 2026, Election Commissioner Sandhu recorded in writing: "Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?" and "Who actually filed these appeals on behalf of ECI?" Neither Commissioner Sandhu, nor Commissioner Joshi, nor the West Bengal CEO had any knowledge or authorisation of these 16.10 lakh appeals. This represents a fabricated, unauthorised litigation abuse designed to disenfranchise judicial beneficiaries."

As regards Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, the plea has stated that he unilaterally issued an order altering the IT oversight structure and removing DEC Sanjay Kumar from IT matters.

This compelled the two Election Commissioners, Sandhu and Joshi, to petition the cabinet secretary directly.

The petition was filed through advocate Chand Qureshi.