The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central Government, Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on a Public Interest Litigation seeking action against Kumar over alleged irregularities in the functioning of the poll panel, including decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the Centre, ECI and Kumar. The Court also tagged the plea with another petition challenging the functioning of the CEC.

The petition was filed in the wake of a recent Indian Express report alleging that the ECI took several decisions relating to SIR despite objections from two of the three Election Commissioners.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the voting rights of citizens were under threat and alleged that the CEC was acting in a biased manner.

"In Delhi, it is 30 per cent of the electorate. In Bengal, it was 25 per cent of the electorate. There are 16 lakh appeals pending before the appellate tribunal. Those persons have already been excluded from one election cycle. Now there is another election cycle," Guruswamy submitted.

The Bench questioned her about the prayers made in the petition.

"Have you seen your prayers?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

Guruswamy responded that she stood by the prayers, arguing that the issue concerned the fundamental right to vote and the functioning of the Election Commission.

"Where is the infirmity in those prayers? When the franchise rights of the world's largest democracy are under threat and SIR is being imposed, and the Chief Election Commissioner's functioning is biased, to say the least," she submitted.

"We also do our homework. We also know the case," CJI Kant responded.

Guruswamy further submitted that the issue was not confined to any particular State but concerned the functioning of the Election Commission across the country.

"The State is only being used as an illustration. We are highlighting the most recent elections. It concerns the national functioning of the CEC and the Election Commissioners, the institution of the Election Commission. That illegality is being protected by an unconstitutional law. What is the sanction for this kind of biased conduct? Is this discharge of official duty? I ask myself. We have grown up with free and fair elections in this country. They do not exist today. I stand by these prayers, each and every one of them. It is a national problem," she argued.

The petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeking a declaration that decisions taken by the ECI without the concurrence of the majority of Election Commissioners are illegal and void.

The plea seeks to declare all decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly initiated, approved or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the full Commission, or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners, as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio.

The petitioner has also sought action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and ECI Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna for alleged breach of official duty.

According to the petition, official records covering a 10-month period between November 2025 and August 2026 allegedly show that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi recorded written dissents and objections on at least 14 occasions against decisions allegedly taken without proper authorisation.

The petitioner has also sought a judicial inquiry commission or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.

The plea further seeks restoration of statutory Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and permission for eligible citizens to register as voters on the basis of the requirements prescribed under the law.

The petition alleges that Form 6, which is used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, was altered by introducing a mandatory ancestral condition relating to "last SIR linkage" for first-time voters. According to the petitioner, the change was made without any legislative amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and was opposed by a majority of the Election Commissioners.

The plea also alleges that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were deprived of their statutory powers under Sections 13B, 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with electoral roll management allegedly being centralised under the ECI's Director General of Information Technology.

Another allegation concerns 97 electors in Goa. The petitioner claimed that EROs were unable to restore their names despite judicial directions because the ECI's software allegedly lacked a "rollback" or reversal facility.

According to the plea, the Chief Electoral Officer of Goa sent eight communications to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Gyanesh Bharti and DG-IT Seema Khanna seeking activation of the feature after EROs found the 97 electors eligible. The petition alleges that the requests were not acted upon.

With regard to the West Bengal SIR, the petitioner has alleged that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed before appellate tribunals against citizens whose names had been restored after they were initially excluded from the electoral rolls.

The plea claims that these appeals were filed without the knowledge or authorisation of the other two Election Commissioners or the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal.

The petitioner referred to a purported written query by Election Commissioner Sandhu in August 2026 asking who had authorised the filing of the appeals and who had actually filed them on behalf of the ECI.

The plea describes the filing of these appeals as unauthorised and alleges that they were aimed at disenfranchising citizens whose names had been restored through judicial orders.

As regards Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, the petitioner alleged that he unilaterally altered the IT oversight structure and removed DEC Sanjay Kumar from IT-related matters.

The plea claims that this prompted Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi to approach the Cabinet Secretary.

The petition was filed through advocate Chand Qureshi.