New Delhi, October 27, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on a petition filed by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the petitioners to file their response to the ECI’s affidavit within 10 days. The court also permitted the poll panel to submit an additional affidavit, if required, within the same period.
The matter will be taken up after the Diwali vacation.
The petitioners have alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR exercise, challenging the manner in which the electoral roll revision is being conducted.
The respondents in the case include the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
On October 15, the Supreme Court issued notice to the poll panel and directed that the petition be tagged with other pending pleas challenging the validity of the SIR exercise in various states.
The Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant had also indicated that it would examine the conduct of one of the petitioners at the next hearing. It later clarified that the petition filed on behalf of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut would be entertained provisionally, subject to his explaining his conduct.
The development followed a controversy over Raut’s remarks concerning CJI Surya Kant after the latter declined to meet Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge to receive a memorandum on the SIR exercise.
The Chief Justice had observed that holding a meeting to discuss pending cases would be contrary to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a criminal contempt petition against Raut and journalist Nikhil Wagle over their remarks against the CJI.
On October 16, the Supreme Court issued notices to both, asking them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
FOLLOW NOW
