The Supreme Court registry has flagged at least 14 defects in the petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc MPs challenging alleged irregularities in the electoral roll revision process.
The registry has asked the lawyer handling the filing to submit a clear copy of the identity card of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, one of the co-petitioners in the case.
It has also flagged illegible or missing pages in the petition and pointed out a shortfall of over Rs 200 in the court fee.
The Registry has also sought an explanation from the petitioners on why Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition.
It has further asked the petitioners to correct the respondents’ names in the listing proforma, rectify their details on page 9 and provide the correct respondent number in the prayer clause.
The Registry also flagged the absence of the mandatory similarity paragraph, which requires petitioners to state whether they have previously approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order or judgment and, if so, the outcome of those proceedings, as prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules.
Gandhi and other Opposition MPs filed the joint petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise after leading a ‘March for Democracy’ towards the Supreme Court. Thousands of people, including activists, civil society members and students, participated in the protest.
What are the petitioners’ key demands?
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition seeks a suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise across the country pending adjudication of the issues raised.
It also seeks the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the implementation of the SIR process and review the existing systems governing electoral rolls and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The petitioners have further sought the production of records relating to the decision to undertake the SIR exercise, including files, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the Election Commissioners.
Other issues raised
In their petition, the Opposition MPs have cited a recent newspaper report to question whether the Chief Election Commissioner exercised the Election Commission’s collective powers without the knowledge or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
The Indian Express recently reported that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period concerning decisions related to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and access to electoral-roll data.
The plea emphasised the need for the Election Commission functioning as a multi-member constitutional body. It contends that the decisions concerning electoral rolls must comply with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The petition names the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents in the case.
