SC finds defects in Rahul Gandhi-led bloc's plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar: What are the 10 problems flagged in the petition?

The Supreme Court registry has flagged 10 defects in a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The objections include missing authorisation documents, an illegible identity card of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and a shortfall of Rs 220 in court fees. The registry has also raised questions about the documents submitted with the petition and the naming of individual Election Commissioners as respondents, a PTI report stated.

The petition had been filed after opposition leaders marched towards the Supreme Court to raise concerns over voter deletions and the Election Commission's functioning. However, the registry's objections are procedural and do not amount to a judicial decision on the allegations against the poll panel.

What are the defects flagged in Rahul Gandhi's petition?

The registry has identified 10 defects in the filing.

1. Illegible identity card: The registry has sought a clear copy of Kharge's identity card, which was submitted as part of the petition.
2. Missing vakalatnamas: Authorisation documents allowing lawyers to represent the petitioners were missing or unsigned for nine opposition leaders.
3. Incomplete supporting documents: The registry has asked for clear copies of documents supporting the petition.
4. Missing Election Commission records: The filing requires supporting material relating to the poll body's decision to initiate the SIR exercise.
5. Digital records not properly annexed: The registry has sought digital copies, including on a pen drive, of the Election Commission's June 24, 2025, decision to begin the revision and other relevant records.
6. Earlier judgment not attached: The registry flagged the failure to annex a copy of an earlier judgment.
7. Questions over naming individual respondents: The registry has sought clarification on why individual Election Commissioners have been named as private respondents in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
8. Illegible pages: Some pages in the petition and accompanying documents were reportedly unclear or difficult to read.
9. Documents in small fonts: The registry raised concerns about the legibility of supporting material submitted with the plea.
10. Court-fee shortfall: The prescribed court fee was short by Rs 220.These are the specific issues identified across the available reports.

Why has the INDIA bloc approached the Supreme Court?

Rahul Gandhi and the other petitioners have raised concerns over alleged large-scale deletions and irregularities during the SIR of electoral rolls. They have also questioned the Election Commission's decision-making process and sought greater transparency in the exercise.

The plea names the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as respondents. The opposition leaders have sought an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, assisted by technical experts and other eminent citizens. The proposed panel would audit deletions and changes to electoral rolls within a fixed timeframe. The petition also seeks a suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise while the court considers the issues raised.

Other demands include safeguards against the removal of eligible voters without notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as a mechanism to restore names that were wrongly deleted.

What happens after this?

The petitioners must address the registry's objections under the Supreme Court's filing procedures before the matter can proceed towards listing for a hearing. Such objections concern compliance with procedural requirements. They do not, by themselves, establish whether the allegations against the Election Commission are valid. The case centres on the opposition's concerns about electoral roll revisions and the safeguards available to eligible voters. The Supreme Court's consideration of those substantive issues is separate from the process of correcting defects in the petition.