Bombay High Court Petition Challenges Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision Process in Maharashtra
A petition filed in the Bombay High Court has challenged the Election Commission of India's conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, seeking a stay on the process and restoration of deleted voter names. The petition does not question whether the SIR itself was correct, but instead focuses on whether the Commission followed the statutory procedures and transparency requirements mandated under Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act.
The petition names the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and the State Election Commission of Maharashtra as respondents. The petitioners are Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar, Gaurav Suryakant Nakharekar, Aadesh Shashikant Bhatkar, and Smitali Nilesh Narvekar, represented by Advocate Asim Sarode and associates.
Two Commissioners' Dissent Over Ten Months
At the heart of the petition lies an allegation that two Election Commissioners formally registered written objections on 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period. These dissent notes from Sandhu and Joshi covered matters including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, the electoral database, the work of officers responsible for voter registration, and software processes used in the revision.
The petitioners argue that the Chief Election Commissioner failed to perform his official duties by proceeding with decisions on roll revision and the SIR without properly addressing or resolving these objections. They contend that protection under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act does not extend to acts that bypass the process mandated under Section 18, which establishes specific procedures for electoral roll revision.
The petition asserts that the Commission took decisions by what it terms a "full Commission" while bypassing fellow Commissioners to issue public directives. This, the petitioners argue, constitutes a violation of the multi-member consensus structure that the Election Commission is designed to operate under.
The Election Commission's Response
On September 23, 2026, the Election Commission issued a press note addressing the controversy. The statement said that the observations made by the two Election Commissioners were part of the Commission's deliberations and that decisions on roll revision, including the SIR, were taken by the Commission as a whole. The press note did not, however, directly address the specific objections raised by Sandhu and Joshi.
A subsequent clarification from the Election Commission, reported on September 24, 2026, reiterated that differing views are a normal part of the Commission's decision-making process. This response did not satisfy the petitioners, who maintain that the mere existence of dissent does not excuse the failure to follow statutory procedures.
As of the filing of this report, the Election Commission had not filed a formal response to the petition in the Bombay High Court.
Statutory Framework and Procedural Questions
The petition's core argument rests on Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, which establishes the procedure for revision of electoral rolls. The petitioners contend that the Commission failed to comply with this section's requirements and that the process did not meet transparency standards essential to electoral integrity.
The petitioners have clarified that they are not challenging an election or questioning the correctness of the electoral roll or the SIR process itself. Their challenge is narrowly focused: whether the Commission followed Section 18 and whether the process met the transparency requirements the law demands. This distinction is significant because it frames the petition as a procedural challenge rather than a substantive attack on the revision's accuracy.
The petitioners sent a notice to the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner on September 23, 2026, formally initiating the challenge. They are also pursuing records under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking access to the 14 orders and the dissent notes of Sandhu and Joshi. The petition specifically asks the court to direct the Commission to place these records on the court's file.
Parallel Proceedings in Higher Courts
The petition emerges against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of the Election Commission's functioning. Separately, an advocate sought statutory consent from the Attorney General of India to initiate criminal contempt action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in the Supreme Court. That contempt petition was prompted by media reports alleging a "complete breakdown of multi-member consensus" within the Commission and "deep structural subversions."
The advocate filing the contempt petition argued that bypassing fellow Commissioners to issue public directives under the banner of a full Commission constitutes willful defiance of law as declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. The gravity with which some legal observers view the allegations of procedural violation is evident from this parallel proceeding.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has been seized of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. A two-Judge Bench returned a split verdict on whether these petitions raise a substantial constitutional question requiring reference to a Constitution Bench of at least five Judges. The papers have been directed to the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order, indicating that fundamental questions about the Commission's structure and governance remain unresolved at the highest judicial level.
Electoral Rolls and Democratic Participation
The petition's outcome carries practical consequences beyond Maharashtra. Electoral rolls form the foundation of democratic participation, and the procedures governing their revision are designed to ensure accuracy, fairness, and transparency. If courts find that the Commission bypassed statutory procedures in Maharashtra's SIR, it could prompt broader review of similar revision processes conducted elsewhere.
The petition also raises questions about the functioning of multi-member bodies like the Election Commission. The Representation of the People Act contemplates that decisions on matters as significant as electoral roll revision should emerge from deliberation among all Election Commissioners. If one Commissioner can proceed with decisions despite formal dissent from colleagues, the multi-member structure loses practical force.
What Comes Next
The Bombay High Court has not yet issued orders on the petition. The prayer for a stay on the SIR and restoration of deleted voter names remains pending. The court will likely consider whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case of procedural violation and whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief pending final adjudication.
The petition's focus on procedure rather than substance may influence the court's approach. If the court finds merit in the procedural allegations, it may order the Commission to comply with Section 18 requirements going forward, potentially requiring re-examination of decisions taken. The outcome will depend on the court's interpretation of what Section 18 demands and whether the Commission's conduct met those standards.
For voters whose names were deleted during the SIR, the petition's resolution determines whether their removal from the rolls stands or whether they will be restored to participate in future elections.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.