A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur Bench has sought the quashing of 14 administrative orders and actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that the decisions were taken despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi.
The petition, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode, raises questions concerning the functioning of the three-member Election Commission, particularly with regard to electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers.
According to the petition, the 14 impugned actions were taken over the past ten months and relate to several aspects of the electoral process, including changes to Form 6, deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, appeals concerning restoration of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, and management and access to the electoral-roll database.
The plea relies on a recent report concerning objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petition states that the two Commissioners had objected to certain decisions being taken without their knowledge or approval.
The reported objections included alleged changes to Form 6 for new voter registration and concerns regarding the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database. The two Commissioners were also reportedly stated to have approached the Cabinet Secretary regarding changes in work allocation concerning the IT infrastructure handling electoral rolls.
The petition contends that the manner in which decisions concerning the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls were allegedly taken raises issues of statutory compliance and constitutional governance.
The petitioners have invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, concerning equality, and Article 326, which provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage.
Among the reliefs sought is quashing of the 14 impugned actions and restoration of deleted voter names. The petition also seeks halting of the SIR process in Maharashtra, postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved, and constitution of an independent Judicial Committee to examine the alleged irregularities.
A separate writ petition has also been filed before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity and implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Maharashtra.
Filed through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi on behalf of two Mumbai businessmen, the petition does not seek to stop the SIR exercise. Instead, it seeks disclosure of the order and recorded reasons under which the exercise is being undertaken, along with transparency regarding its methodology and legal basis.
The petition argues that the ECI may conduct a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship, and that where doubts regarding citizenship remain, the matter should be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
It also seeks safeguards against wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and restoration of deleted names. The petition alleges that, despite instructions that documents should not be collected during enumeration, Booth Level Officers have allegedly been asking citizens to provide supporting documents while receiving Enumeration Forms.
Both petitions are expected to be mentioned before the respective Bombay High Court benches on September 28, 2026.
Case Title: Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar v. Election Commission of India
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy