Supreme Court flags 14 'defects' in Rahul Gandhi's petition against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

A petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA bloc leaders over alleged electoral irregularities and the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) will not be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the registry flagged 14 defects. These include a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's identity card, and missing vakalatnamas for nine of the 11 petitioners.

The petitioners' legal team requested that the matter be listed tomorrow (14 October) after the defects are rectified.

The registry's objections could delay the Opposition leaders' plea seeking an independent, time-bound inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the suspension of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls pending the inquiry. The plea was otherwise expected to be considered alongside pending petitions concerning protests in Delhi demanding Kumar's resignation.

Nine petitioners yet to submit vakalatnamas

Those whose vakalatnamas are missing include Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) MP Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy.

The registry also questioned why "private parties" had been named as respondents in a writ petition that is in the nature of public interest litigation. The objection concerns the inclusion of all three election commissioners as respondents, alongside the ECI as the first respondent.

The petition was filed a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively. However, he indicated that their concerns could be raised through judicial proceedings and assured an expedited hearing if they approached the court.

Opposition leaders file plea after protest march

Gandhi personally appeared at the Supreme Court yesterday evening (12 October) to file the petition, accompanied by Kharge and nine other Opposition leaders, in a show of unity over the electoral roll revision exercise and the alleged unilateral functioning of the poll panel.

The legal move followed a march, described by the Opposition as a "March for Democracy", which was stopped by police barricades on Bhagwan Dass Road, around 600 metres from the Supreme Court. The mobilisation came amid heightened tensions over the SIR and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

What the petition seeks

The petition, filed through advocate S Prasanna, seeks an independent, time-bound investigation into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Kumar, including the June 2025 decision to undertake the SIR. It names the ECI, Kumar and the two other election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, as respondents.

The Opposition leaders said they had approached the top court in discharge of their public duties to "protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage" and ensure that the electoral process remained free, fair, transparent and accountable.

The petitioners said they were not seeking to reopen the question of the validity of the SIR. Instead, they raised concerns about whether the safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court, and the requirement for the ECI to act as a collective constitutional institution, had been followed in implementing the exercise.

Referring to an Indian Express report indicating that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected to the chief election commissioner's unilateral decision-making on 14 occasions over 10 months, the petition asked the top court to call for the complete files, agendas, minutes, notings and objections recorded by the two commissioners regarding each disputed decision, including the June 2025 decision to conduct the SIR.

"The reported exercise of collective powers by a single member, if established, would raise a substantial question concerning compliance with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. The issue is not merely one of internal administrative procedure. It concerns the lawful exercise of constitutional authority by the institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of elections," the petition said.