Rahul Gandhi's plea against Election Commission delayed as Supreme Court registry flags 14 ‘defects’

A petition filed by Lok Sabha Leader of the Opposition, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) will not be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Oct 13) after the registry flagged 14 defects in the filing. The defects include a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's identity card and missing vakalatnamas for nine petitioners. The petitioners' legal team has requested that the matter be listed on Wednesday (Oct 14) after the objections are addressed.

The delay comes as the Opposition leaders seek an independent, time-bound inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They have also sought a stay on the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls until the inquiry is completed. The plea was expected to be considered alongside other pending petitions linked to protests in Delhi demanding Kumar’s resignation.

Missing vakalatnamas

Nine of the 11 petitioners are yet to submit their vakalatnamas, the documents authorising lawyers to represent them in court. Those named among the petitioners whose documents are missing include Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.

The registry has also questioned the inclusion of “private parties” as respondents in a writ petition framed as a public interest litigation. The objection relates to the decision to name all three election commissioners as respondents, alongside the ECI.

The petition names Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Plea follows Opposition march and CJI meeting request

The filing came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge, the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively. He indicated that their concerns could be raised through judicial proceedings and assured an expeditious hearing if they approached the court.

Gandhi personally appeared at the Supreme Court on Monday evening to file the petition, accompanied by Kharge and nine other Opposition leaders. Their joint move signalled a coordinated challenge to the electoral roll revision exercise and what they alleged was unilateral decision-making within the poll panel.

What the Opposition wants the court to examine

Filed through advocate S Prasanna, the petition seeks an independent investigation into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Kumar, including the June 2025 decision to conduct the SIR.

The petitioners said they had approached the Supreme Court to “protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage” and ensure that elections remain free, fair, transparent and accountable. They clarified that they were not asking the court to reconsider the validity of the SIR itself. Instead, they want it to examine whether established safeguards were followed and whether the ECI acted collectively while taking decisions on the exercise.

Petition seeks records of alleged disagreements within ECI

The plea cites an Indian Express report that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected to unilateral decision-making by Kumar on 14 occasions over a period of 10 months. On that basis, the petition asks the Supreme Court to call for complete records of the disputed decisions, including files, agendas, minutes, internal notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners. These records, the petition says, should include material relating to the June 2025 decision to conduct the SIR.

“The reported exercise of collective powers by a single member, if established, would raise a substantial question concerning compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 Act,” the petition states. It argues that the issue goes beyond internal administrative procedure and concerns the lawful exercise of constitutional authority by the body responsible for safeguarding the integrity of elections.