Petition in Supreme Court against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over SIR process, seeking criminal action

September 25, 2026

New Delhi: A new petition has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. It seeks criminal proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for alleged violation of his statutory duties.

The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges that several decisions, guidelines, and software changes during the voter list revision were made without the consent of the other two Election Commissioners.

According to a PTI report, the petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to declare such actions unconstitutional and invalid.

Action sought under the Representation of the People Act

The petition seeks direction to the competent authority to register a complaint and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

In addition to CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the petition also names Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials whose alleged role may emerge in the investigation.

Section 32 provides for punishment for dereliction of official duty in certain matters related to the preparation, revision, or correction of the electoral roll.

The petitioner raises several issues, including changes to Form 6 during the SIR process, centralization of electoral roll data, non-inclusion of eligible voters through ECINet, and the 16.10 lakh appeals filed for inclusion of voters in West Bengal.

Questions raised over changes to Form 6

One of the key issues in the petition is the alleged change to Form 6, the statutory form used by eligible citizens to enroll their names in the electoral roll.

According to the petition, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi objected to the changes made to Form 6 in May 2026. He reportedly stated that changes to the statutory form cannot be made without amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to the petition, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu later supported this objection.

The petitioner alleges that despite these objections, Form 6 on the ECINet portal continued to request information on whether the applicant or their relative’s name was included in the previous SIR electoral roll.

The petition also cites a subsequent comment by Sandhu, who described the changes as “unauthorized and illegal.”

Questions also raised about decisions within the Election Commission

The petition also challenges the manner in which certain decisions related to the SIR were made.

The petitioner has demanded that the decisions, directives, guidelines, and software changes allegedly initiated or implemented by the CEC without the full consent of the Election Commission or contrary to the majority view of other Election Commissioners be declared unconstitutional and legally invalid.

The petition cites Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The petitioner argues that in the event of a difference of opinion among Election Commissioners, the decision should be based on the majority opinion.

Demand for an independent investigation of the SIR data

The petition also demands an independent investigation of the voter list database used during the SIR.

To this end, the petitioner has requested the formation of a Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. It also calls for the involvement of cybersecurity and IT experts.

The petition claims that approximately 130 million names were removed in 30 states and union territories during the SIR process. The petitioner has sought an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the removal of these names. This data and the allegations related to it are claims made in the petition.

Demand for Restoration of Original Form 6

The petition also requests the Supreme Court to restore Form 6, which the petitioner claims is the original statutory form.

The petitioner has sought the revocation of the alleged changes made to Form 6 on the ECINet and ERONet portals and the restoration of the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Furthermore, the petition also seeks a direction to preserve the server logs, databases, official communications, and metadata associated with ECINet and ERONet from October 1, 2025.