On Monday, 2026-10-12, Rahul Gandhi led a procession of INDIA bloc leaders from Mandi House to the steps of the Supreme Court of India to protest the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists. A large crowd assembled along the route, underscoring the political weight of the demonstration.
Later that day, the INDIA bloc’s legal team submitted a petition to the Supreme Court invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The petition sought to halt the SIR process, alleging irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court registry examined the filed petition and identified fourteen procedural defects that prevent the matter from being listed for a hearing. These defects were communicated to the petitioners as grounds for rejecting the filing in its current form.
A financial shortfall was detected: the petition was submitted with 220 rupees less than the required court fee.
Among the defects, the registry noted that the Power of Attorney documents accompanying the petition lacked signatures for petitioners numbered three through eleven. This omission corresponded to nine specific INDIA bloc leaders: Sougat Roy, Akhilesh Yadav, Tejashwi Yadav, Sanjay Raut, M.A. Baby, D. Raja, Mahua Moyna, Supriya Sule, and E.T. Mohammed Bashi. A Power of Attorney is required to authorize representatives to act on behalf of each petitioner in court proceedings.
Yesterday, the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and INDIA Bloc leaders marched to the Supreme Court to file a petition against the Election Commission of India.
The registry also pointed out that a clear copy of the identification document for Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge was not attached to the petition. Valid identification is customary to verify the identity of those filing the suit.
A financial shortfall was detected: the petition was submitted with 220 rupees less than the required court fee. The registry indicated that this amount must be paid before the petition can proceed further.
The registry raised a query regarding the petition’s decision to name individual election officers as respondents. It asked the petitioners to clarify why those specific officials were singled out in the legal challenge.
Finally, the registry highlighted that copies of supporting documents referenced in the petition were not clear or legible. Proper documentation is necessary for the court to assess the claims made about the SIR process.
As of the registry’s observations, the petition remains unable to be listed for hearing until the identified defects are remedied. The INDIA bloc has characterized the SIR exercise as flawed, while the Supreme Court registry has maintained a neutral stance, applying standard procedural checks.