A writ petition before the Bombay High Court has challenged 14 administrative actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that the decisions were taken despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.
The petition, filed before the Kolhapur Bench, also seeks restoration of voters whose names were deleted during the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra.
Petition Raises Questions Over ECI Functioning
The petitioners allege that the disputed decisions involved voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, access to the electoral-roll database, the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers and software-related processes.
The plea refers to reported objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning several decisions. It argues that the functioning of the poll panel should comply with the provisions governing its multi-member structure.
One issue highlighted in the petition is the alleged alteration of Form 6, which is used for new voter registration. The petitioners have also questioned aspects of electoral-roll database management.
Voter Restoration and SIR Relief Sought
Among the reliefs sought is the restoration of voters whose names were removed during Maharashtra’s SIR exercise.
The petition also seeks a halt to the SIR process in Maharashtra and asks for an independent judicial committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to examine alleged data deletions and software-related issues.
The petition further asks for the postponement of upcoming Assembly elections in states where SIR was conducted until fresh and legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved.
Separate Petition Questions Maharashtra SIR
A separate petition before the Bombay High Court’s principal bench challenges aspects of the constitutional validity and implementation of SIR in Maharashtra.
That petition seeks disclosure of the order and reasons for conducting the exercise, along with greater transparency about its methodology and legal basis. It also seeks safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.
The two matters are expected to be mentioned before the respective benches on September 28. The filing itself represents the petitioners’ allegations and requests; the court has yet to determine the merits of those claims.
