The Supreme Court on Thursday, 15 October 2026, sought responses from the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, which alleges irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arbitrary deletion of voters and flaws in the functioning of the poll panel.
But the hearing, before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was about more than the petition. It was also about the march that brought it to the court’s doorstep.
‘Nobody can browbeat the judiciary’
Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing in the proceedings alongside Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, told the bench that a petition had been filed, backed by a memorandum signed by around 200 lawyers, against Rahul Gandhi for bringing large numbers of supporters onto the Supreme Court premises on 12 October in an attempt, he argued, to pressure the court.
“It is unacceptable that this court is seized with political procession. What happened in SC should not have happened,” Bhatia said, according to NDTV’s account of the hearing.
The Chief Justice was unmoved by the suggestion that the court could be intimidated by crowds. “No one can browbeat us. These are all fragile attempts. Nobody took notice of this,” CJI Surya Kant said, as reported by The Times of India. NDTV quoted him as saying: “Nobody can browbeat judiciary.”
The bench went further, taking note of senior lawyers who, in the CJI’s telling, criticise the institution outside court and praise it soon after. “We know they say something outside and something else inside the court. We are not sitting in ivory towers. We are also aware of such things,” the CJI observed. The Times of India reported that this remark followed senior advocate Kapil Sibal expressing disillusionment with the Supreme Court and then, the very next day after it passed a particular order, saying the court had regained people’s faith.
Notice issued — but conduct under scrutiny
The court made clear that issuing notice on the petition was not an endorsement of how the petitioners had gone about their protest. “We will issue notice but we want to know his conduct on the next date of hearing,” the CJI said.
Live Law reported that the order, uploaded after the hearing, identified the petitioner whose conduct must be explained: Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut, listed as petitioner number six of thirteen. “In W.P. (C) No. 1351/2026 (Item 25), the petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 6 is entertained on a provisional basis, subject to his explaining his conduct,” the bench recorded. This is understood to relate to Raut’s comments against the CJI and the judges.
The same day, the Attorney General granted consent to the Supreme Court Bar Association to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Raut over those comments, Live Law reported.
The court also issued notice to Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav and others on a separate plea concerning their march to the apex court, and directed that CCTV recordings from the court’s premises during the INDIA bloc’s protest be preserved.
What happened on 12 October
On Monday, 12 October, Rahul Gandhi led an INDIA bloc march that began at Barakhamba Road in central Delhi and ended at the Supreme Court, where the petition was to be filed. The protest produced a large gathering inside the court complex — the gathering that drew Thursday’s rebuke.
The march followed a rebuff. Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who leads the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, had sought an appointment with the Chief Justice to submit a memorandum raising concerns over the SIR process and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The CJI declined, saying the issues were already pending before the Supreme Court, that the court could not interfere with the government’s functioning on its administrative side, and that the leaders were free to approach it on the judicial side for appropriate relief.
Who has petitioned the court — and what they want
The petition against the Election Commission was filed through advocate-on-record S Prasanna on behalf of thirteen petitioners, among them Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy, Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav, Supriya Sule of the NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), Sanjay Raut, CPI general secretary D Raja, Mahua Majhi of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, CPM leader MA Baby and Indian Union Muslim League leader ET Mohammed Basheer.
Their demands, as listed in Live Law’s report of the filings, are extensive. They include:
- Production of the complete file relating to the ECI’s decision of 24 June 2025 to launch the SIR.
- Examination of whether the SIR decisions complied with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the principles laid down in the T.N. Seshan judgment — with quashing of decisions taken without lawful authority.
- A direction that every SIR-related decision be taken collectively and duly minuted under Section 18 of the 2023 Act while the case is pending.
- A requirement that the online Form 6 conform to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, unless those rules are amended.
- The constitution of a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to audit SIR deletions and access to electoral-roll databases, and to review EVM processes against global best practices.
- Booth-wise publication of deleted voters’ names, with reasons for each deletion and age- and gender-wise breakdowns, plus a working mechanism for restoring names.
- An assurance that no voter’s name be deleted without notice and an opportunity of hearing, and that eligible people in Punjab and other poll-bound states be allowed to apply for inclusion until the last date for applications.
- Suspension of the SIR exercise across all states pending the court’s decision.
The petition also seeks action against officials found responsible, redressal of the petitioners’ grievances and an independent audit, among other reliefs.
Separate pleas from Owaisi and Digvijaya Singh
The bench did not confine itself to the INDIA bloc petition. It also issued notice on a plea by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and on a separate plea by Congress leader Digvijaya Singh.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Owaisi, pressed for an interim order that the file noting and records of the ECI’s decision-making on the SIR be produced before the next hearing, arguing they would be needed for the matter to be considered. The court said notice was being issued on all the prayers.
State-wise hearing, not one bundled case
One practical detail may shape how this litigation unfolds. The Times of India reported that the bench issued notices on all petitions questioning the SIR process in different states but clarified it would take them up state-wise rather than bunching them together. That means the opposition’s challenge will be tested against the specifics of each state’s revision exercise, not argued as a single national question.
The hearing itself opened on a testy note. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had begun arguments for Rahul Gandhi and the other leaders on alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s collective decision-making when he was interrupted by Kapil Sibal, according to The Times of India.
What happens next
The court will now await responses from the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners. When the matter returns, at least one petitioner — Sanjay Raut — will first have questions of his own to answer. Similar matters concerning the SIR exercise were already scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the CJI had indicated that any petition filed by the opposition leaders could be considered alongside the pending cases.
For the opposition, the notice is a procedural win: the court has agreed to examine the SIR decision-making it has spent weeks protesting against. For the petitioners, though, Thursday’s hearing carried a warning attached. The Chief Justice put it plainly: the court would hear the case, but it would not be moved by crowds at its gates.
FAQ
What did the Supreme Court decide on 15 October 2026?
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on the INDIA bloc’s petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and sought the authorities’ responses.
Why did the court criticise Rahul Gandhi's protest?
Rahul Gandhi led an INDIA bloc march from Barakhamba Road to the Supreme Court on 12 October 2026, producing a large gathering inside the court complex. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Gaurav Bhatia told the bench this was an attempt to pressure the court. CJI Surya Kant responded that nobody can browbeat the judiciary and said the court wants one petitioner to explain his conduct at the next hearing.
Which petitioner has to explain his conduct?
According to the order reported by Live Law, petitioner number six — Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut — must explain his conduct, understood to relate to his comments against the CJI and judges. The Attorney General also granted consent to the Supreme Court Bar Association to initiate criminal contempt against Raut.
What does the INDIA bloc petition ask for?
It seeks production of the complete file on the ECI’s 24 June 2025 decision to launch the SIR, judicial scrutiny of whether the decisions complied with Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act, an audit of SIR deletions by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, booth-wise publication of deleted voters’ names with reasons, protection against deletion without notice and hearing, and suspension of the SIR exercise pending adjudication.