Gyanesh Kumar's 14 SIR orders challenged in Bombay HC, pleas seek voter restoration

The pleas seek directions to reinstate voters removed without due process, halt the SIR in Maharashtra, defer elections in states until compliant electoral rolls are finalised and an independent probe.

In Short

• Petitions demand restoration of deleted voters, transparency in SIR methodology
• One demands cancelling 14 orders by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on SIR
• Another challenges document demands during home verification by Booth Level Officers

Two petitions have been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking to cancel 14 orders issued by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), while also challenging the constitutionality of the exercise in Maharashtra.

The petitions seek the restoration of deleted voters, preparation of a legally compliant electoral roll and disclosure or production of the order and recorded reasons under which the SIR is being undertaken in Maharashtra. They also seek transparency in the methodology and legal basis of the exercise, along with safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.

The development comes amid a renewed row over the SIR following an Indian Express report alleging that two Election Commissioners of the three-member body had, on several occasions, recorded their opposition to decisions taken by Gyanesh Kumar, including those related to the SIR. Another report claimed that 97 eligible voters in Goa were removed from the electoral rolls despite the Chief Electoral Officer repeatedly pressing for their inclusion.

One of the petitions, filed before the Kolhapur Bench by three residents represented by advocate Asim Sarode, seeks to cancel 14 administrative orders passed by Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea refers to reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on 14 occasions over issues including voter deletions, database access, software blockages and changes made to Form 6 in July. It alleges that these actions violated provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act.

The second petition, filed before the principal bench in Mumbai by Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) Youth President Sagar Ramesh Gawai and another resident, challenges the door-to-door verification practices followed during the exercise.

The plea relies on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) case and alleges that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) are demanding identity documents in violation of the Election Commission of India's mandate.

According to the petitioners, voters who are not found during home visits are tagged as Absent, Shifted, Dead or Duplicate (ASD), without mandatory hearings or formal speaking orders by Electoral Registration Officers. The petitioners, represented by advocates Hemant Ghadigaonkar, Sandesh V More and Hitendra Gandhi, have also argued that electoral officers do not have the authority to determine citizenship and must refer any such doubts to the central authorities.

The petitioners have clarified that they do not seek to stall elections but are demanding strict adherence to the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Collectively, the petitions seek directions to reinstate all voters removed without due process, pause the SIR in Maharashtra and postpone Assembly elections in affected states until legally compliant electoral rolls are finalised and constitute an independent committee headed by a retired High Court judge to investigate data deletions and software blockages.

The petitions are likely to be mentioned for urgent hearing before the respective benches next week.

The petitioners have said they are aggrieved by what they describe as a systematic erosion of constitutional norms governing the management of electoral rolls, which they contend affects their fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 14 and their constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326.

The Supreme Court has already upheld the legal validity of the SIR, especially in the context of Bihar. It held that the Election Commission has the statutory authority to conduct the exercise and that the Bihar SIR framework was neither disproportionate nor manifestly arbitrary.

The pending litigation before the top court is now largely concerned with how the SIR is being implemented in other states, voter exclusions, notice procedures and the effectiveness of appellate mechanisms.

However, the latest reports concerning dissent within the Election Commission and the exclusion of eligible voters during the SIR have brought the exercise under heightened legal and political scrutiny.

- Ends