Archive · 5 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Examines CEC Immunity in SIR Petitions
The Supreme Court heard cases about changes to India’s voter lists.
Those changes were part of a process called the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR.
The people who filed the cases say some decisions were made without agreement from two other election commissioners.
One petitioner wants Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar suspended while the case continues.
Another wants the disputed decisions cancelled and an independent investigation.
That petitioner also alleges that 13 crore names were deleted across 30 states and Union Territories.
The court said it would look at the legal immunity given to the CEC and said the Election Commission should follow the law.
These claims are in the petitions and have not been established by the court.
The reports differ on whether the hearing was scheduled for Monday, October 5, or described as taking place on Monday; they do not establish the year.
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging decisions linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension.
The petitions allege that 14 SIR-related decisions were taken without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
One petitioner asks the court to examine Commission records and says decisions by the multi-member body should not be made unilaterally.
Another petitioner seeks to quash the disputed decisions and establish an independent inquiry, including forensic audits of ECINet and ERONet.
The court said it would examine the immunity granted to the CEC and observed that the Election Commission should be guided by law; the allegations remain unproven.
- Who
- Petitioners Ramesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi challenge actions involving Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India.
- What
- The Supreme Court heard petitions seeking suspension of the CEC and review or reversal of SIR-related decisions, and said it would examine the CEC’s immunity.
- When
- The reports describe the hearing as taking place on Monday; one specifies October 5. The year is not established consistently in the reports.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The petitioners allege that SIR-related decisions were made unilaterally and seek judicial review, cancellation of decisions, and an independent inquiry.
Petitioners’ allegations and requests
Court status and reported response
How ECI decisions were made
Petitioners’ allegations and requests
The petitioners allege that 14 SIR-related decisions were made without the concurrence of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and argue that a multi-member Commission should not act unilaterally.
Court status and reported response
The court said it would examine the matter and observed that the ECI should be guided by law. The reports do not provide a substantive response from the Commission.
Alleged voter-roll changes
Petitioners’ allegations and requests
A petition alleges that 13 crore names were deleted and seeks an independent investigation, including forensic audits of ECINet and ERONet.
Court status and reported response
The articles state that these claims are allegations in the petitions and have not been established by the Supreme Court.
CEC suspension and immunity
Petitioners’ allegations and requests
One petitioner seeks to suspend Gyanesh Kumar’s functions as CEC while the case is pending.
Court status and reported response
The Supreme Court said it would look into the immunity granted to the CEC; the requested suspension is not reported as a court order.
- Disputed decisions
- The petitions allege that 14 decisions relating to SIR were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
- Commissioners named
- Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi
- Interim request
- One petitioner seeks to prevent Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC while the case is pending.
- Alleged voter-name deletions
- A petition alleges that 13 crore names were deleted across 30 states and Union Territories.
- Requested investigation
- An independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team, with forensic audits of ECINet and ERONet.
- Court's stated concern
- The Supreme Court said it would look into immunity granted to the poll body chief and observed that the ECI should be guided by law.
- Allegation status
- The allegations are contained in the petitions and have not been established by the Supreme Court.
- Timing reported
- Reports refer to a Monday hearing; one gives October 5, while the year is not consistently established.
