Bombay High Court Plea Seeks Quashing of 14 ECI Actions, Restoration of Deleted Voter Names

Yugcharan News / 25-09-2026

A writ petition before the Bombay High Court has challenged 14 administrative actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar despite recorded objections from the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi. The petition raises questions concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), management of electoral rolls, voter registration and access to the electoral-roll database.

The petition has been filed through Advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court. According to the plea, decisions relating to electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers raise questions regarding statutory compliance and constitutional governance.

The case has emerged amid the ongoing debate over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra. The petitioners have challenged a series of ECI actions taken over the past 10 months and have sought judicial intervention over what they describe as irregularities in the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls.

Petition Challenges 14 ECI Actions

The plea seeks the quashing of 14 administrative orders and actions attributed to the ECI and CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The petition states that the disputed actions were reportedly the subject of objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

According to the petition, the issues covered by those objections included changes to Form 6, which is used for new voter registration, deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process, and the management and accessibility of the electoral-roll database.

The petition relies on a recent report by The Indian Express concerning the objections allegedly recorded by the two Election Commissioners. The report, as referred to in the plea, also concerns decisions that were allegedly taken without the knowledge or approval of Sandhu and Joshi.

The petitioners have questioned whether the disputed decisions complied with the statutory framework governing the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls.

Objections Over Form 6 and Electoral Database

According to the material cited in the petition, Sandhu and Joshi had objected to certain decisions concerning what they described as “unauthorised and illegal” changes to Form 6.

The two Election Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns over what they viewed as the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database. The petition further states that they approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in work allocation relating to the information-technology infrastructure handling electoral rolls, alleging that those changes had been made without their knowledge.

These allegations form part of the petitioners’ broader challenge to the manner in which electoral-roll related decisions were allegedly taken and implemented.

The petition describes the dispute as concerning the collective functioning of the ECI and argues that decisions affecting voter registration and electoral rolls require adherence to the relevant legal and constitutional framework.

Petition Seeks Restoration of Deleted Voter Names

Apart from seeking the quashing of the 14 disputed actions, the petitioners have requested restoration of deleted voter names.

The plea argues that the alleged actions have resulted in what the petitioners describe as a “systematic erosion of constitutional norms” governing the management of electoral rolls. It links the issue to Article 14 of the Constitution, concerning equality before the law, and Article 326, which provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage.

The petitioners have also sought an end to the SIR process in Maharashtra, restoration of deleted names and postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly elections until electoral rolls that comply with the law are prepared and approved.

Another significant relief sought is the constitution of an independent Judicial Committee to examine the alleged irregularities.

These are reliefs sought by the petitioners and do not represent findings by the Bombay High Court. The allegations and constitutional arguments raised in the plea remain matters for judicial consideration.

Challenge to Maharashtra SIR

Separately, another writ petition has been filed before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity and implementation of the SIR exercise in Maharashtra.

The second petition was filed through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi on behalf of two businessmen from Mumbai. Unlike the first petition, it does not seek to stop the SIR exercise altogether. Instead, the petitioners are seeking disclosure or production of the order and recorded reasons under which the revision is being conducted in Maharashtra. They have also sought greater transparency concerning its methodology and legal basis.

The petition takes the position that the ECI may conduct a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship. According to the plea, where a question regarding citizenship remains, the matter should be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, with the electoral consequences depending on that authority’s decision.

The petition also seeks safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and restoration of voter names that have been deleted.

Concerns Over Supporting Documents

The second petition raises another issue concerning the collection of documents during the enumeration process.

According to the plea, the ECI’s instructions for Maharashtra do not permit the collection of documents during enumeration. However, the petitioners allege that Booth Level Officers have been asking citizens to provide “supporting documents” while receiving Enumeration Forms.

The petitioners have sought transparency over the legal basis and methodology of the SIR and safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded from electoral rolls.

The plea specifically states that the petitioners are not seeking to stop or disturb the SIR programme. Instead, they are asking for disclosure of the order and recorded reasons under which the exercise is being carried out and for safeguards against wrongful exclusion.

Both Petitions Likely to Be Mentioned on September 28

According to the source material, both petitions are likely to be mentioned before the respective benches of the Bombay High Court on Monday, September 28.

The first matter is titled Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar vs Election Commission of India. The petition challenges the 14 ECI actions and seeks several forms of relief, including restoration of deleted voter names and examination of the alleged irregularities.

The second petition focuses specifically on the implementation and legal basis of the SIR exercise in Maharashtra. It seeks greater transparency and safeguards rather than an outright halt to the exercise.

The proceedings could therefore bring judicial scrutiny to questions concerning electoral-roll management, the role and functioning of Election Commissioners, voter registration procedures and the implementation of the SIR in Maharashtra.

At this stage, the allegations contained in the petitions remain claims made by the petitioners. The Bombay High Court has yet to adjudicate on the merits of those allegations or grant the reliefs sought. The petitions instead place a number of questions concerning electoral administration and voter-roll revision before the court for consideration.

The case also highlights the legal importance of maintaining accurate and transparent electoral rolls, particularly where deletion or restoration of voter names is concerned. Any judicial consideration of the petitions will have to address the statutory framework governing electoral rolls as well as the constitutional provisions invoked by the petitioners.

The next developments are expected when the matters are mentioned before the Bombay High Court on September 28.