A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The plea, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, follows a report by The Indian Express which said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over decisions concerning SIR, voter additions and deletions, changes to Form 6 and the management of electoral-roll data.

The petitioner has sought a declaration that decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly implemented without the concurrence of the majority of Election Commissioners be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

The plea has also sought action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and ECI Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna.

It seeks directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against officials found guilty of an alleged deliberate breach of official duty.

According to the petition, official records between November 2025 and August 2026 show that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi recorded written dissents and objections at least 14 times against decisions allegedly taken without their authorisation. The petition claims that four such objections were recorded on a single day.

The petitioner has further sought a judicial inquiry commission or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged deletion of around 13 crore voters from electoral rolls during the SIR exercise. The Indian Express had reported that more than 13 crore names were struck off draft rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the exercise.

The plea has also sought restoration of statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and permission for eligible adults to register as voters on the basis of the original statutory requirements.

According to the petitioner, Form 6, which is used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, was allegedly modified to introduce a mandatory "last SIR linkage" requirement for first-time young voters. The plea claims that the change was made without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and was objected to by the other Election Commissioners.

The petitioner has also alleged that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were deprived of their statutory role in electoral-roll management and that control was instead centralised through the ECI's IT system.

In relation to Goa, the plea alleges that the ECI's software lacked a rollback or reversal facility, preventing EROs from restoring the names of 97 electors whom they had found eligible despite judicial directions.

The petition further refers to the West Bengal SIR and alleges that the ECI filed more than 16.10 lakh appeals before appellate tribunals against the restoration of electors whose names had earlier been excluded from the rolls.

The petitioner claims that these appeals were filed without the knowledge or authorisation of Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi or the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal.

The plea also makes allegations concerning the restructuring of IT oversight within the ECI and claims that the two Election Commissioners had raised concerns over the changes.

The petitioner has sought appropriate directions from the Supreme Court on all these issues, including the alleged unauthorised decisions, restoration of voter-registration procedures and an independent probe into the alleged deletion of voters.

The ECI, however, has maintained that its decisions, including those concerning SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of all three Election Commissioners.

The petition was filed through advocate Chand Qureshi.