Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Against ECI Delayed As Supreme Court Registry Flags 14 Defects

A petition filed by 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 after the registry flagged 14 defects in the filing.

The objections include a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s identity card and missing vakalatnamas — authorisations for lawyers to represent clients — for nine of the 11 petitioners.

The petitioners’ legal team has requested that the matter be listed on Wednesday after the defects are rectified.

The registry objections could delay the Opposition leaders’ plea seeking an independent, time-bound inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition also seeks suspension of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls pending the inquiry.

The plea was expected to be considered alongside pending petitions concerning protests in Delhi demanding Kumar’s resignation.

Nine Petitioners Yet To Submit Vakalatnamas

Among those whose vakalatnamas are missing are Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.

The registry also questioned why “private parties” had been arrayed as respondents in a writ petition that is in the nature of public interest litigation.

The objection relates to the inclusion of all three election commissioners as respondents, alongside the ECI, which is listed as the first respondent. The other two commissioners named in the plea are Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Plea Filed After CJI Declines Meeting With Rahul Gandhi, Kharge

The filing came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to meet Gandhi and Kharge, the Leaders of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively.

However, the CJI 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 appearance highlighted the Opposition’s objections to the electoral roll revision exercise and what they describe as the unilateral functioning of the poll panel.

Opposition’s ‘March For Democracy’ Stopped Near Supreme Court

The legal move followed a protest march organised by the Opposition under the banner of “March for Democracy”. Police barricades stopped the march on Bhagwan Dass Road, around 600 metres from the Supreme Court.

The mobilisation came amid heightened tensions over the SIR exercise and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

What The Petition Seeks

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

The ECI, Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi have been named as respondents.

The Opposition leaders said they had approached the Supreme Court in discharge of their public duties to “protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage” and ensure that the electoral process remained free, fair, transparent and accountable.

The petitioners clarified that they were not seeking to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR itself. Instead, they raised concerns over whether safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court had been followed and whether the ECI had functioned as a collective constitutional institution while implementing the exercise.

Petition Cites Report On Commissioners’ Objections

Referring to an Indian Express report that said Sandhu and Joshi had objected to unilateral decision-making by the chief election commissioner on 14 occasions over 10 months, the petition asked the Supreme Court to call for the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners in connection with each disputed decision.

These include 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 said.

“The issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure. It concerns the lawful exercise of constitutional authority by the institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of election,” it added.