The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the three election commissioners on a petition filed by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders seeking an independent, timebound inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the poll panel Published on: Oct 16, 2026, 07:52:30 IST By Utkarsh Anand, New Delhi Prefer HTon Google Share via Copy link The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the three election commissioners on a petition filed by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders seeking an independent, timebound inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the poll panel.
India News A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, issued a provisional notice to Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut, a co-petitioner in the case, asking him to explain his statements against the CJI after he declined to meet Opposition leaders seeking to raise concerns over ECI.
The court clarified that the notice did not amount to a condemnation of Raut’s conduct and that it would examine the issue after hearing his explanation.
“Issuing notice does not mean that we are condemning anything.
We are issuing notice.
But regarding one of the petitioners, we will definitely entertain the issue,” said the bench, adding that the notice against Raut was provisional and subject to his explaining his conduct at the next hearing.
Raut’s remarks came on October 12, after the CJI declined to meet Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, who had sought an audience to submit a memorandum on the functioning of ECI and the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
“The Chief Justice, whose role is to safeguard the Constitution, is unwilling to meet us...When we are seeking to save democracy amidst the theft of votes and electoral fraud, and the deletion of millions of names from the rolls and wish to meet you to voice our grievance, you say you will not meet politicians.
The people will remember this,” Raut had told reporters.
Calling the episode a “misfortune for the Constitution and democracy of this country”, he had said that people would remember the CJI’s refusal to meet the Opposition leaders.
The petition was filed after the CJI indicated that the Opposition leaders’ concerns could be raised through appropriate judicial proceedings rather than through a meeting with the court’s head.
The plea alleges that chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions unilaterally, raising questions about compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for decision-making by majority in the event of a disagreement among the commissioners.
The Opposition leaders have sought a timebound, independent inquiry into the disputed decisions, including the June 2025 decision to conduct the SIR exercise, and an interim suspension of the ongoing revision pending the inquiry.
Referring to a media report that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to Kumar’s alleged unilateral decision-making on 14 occasions over 10 months, the petition seeks production of the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners on the disputed decisions.
It also seeks an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, along with technical experts and civil society members, to examine the poll panel’s decisions, policies, procedures and technical architecture relating to electronic voting machines.
The petitioners have clarified that they are not seeking to reopen the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the validity of the 2025 SIR exercise in Bihar.
Instead, they want the court to examine whether individual decisions taken during its implementation complied with constitutional and statutory safeguards governing the functioning of ECI.
The petition, filed through advocate S Prasanna, names ECI, Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi as respondents.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Utkarsh Anand Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry.
He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy.
His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments.
He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact.
Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses.
His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award.
As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms.
