Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Oct 12: Thousands of people gathered in central Delhi on Monday as opposition leaders began their march to the Supreme Court to protest against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of electoral irregularities with their legal teams filling a petition in the apex court against the CEC over “vote theft” allegation.
The plea has also been filed by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, TMC’s Saugata Roy, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Prasad Yadav.
The protesters moved the apex court seeking the formation of an independent committee to enquire into the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and decision-making process concerning it within the Election Commission of India. The petition sought a re-look into the online mechanism for voter registration and services like the ECINet portal. The Congress leader urged the apex court to call for records and official notings concerning the SIR process from the Election Commission of India.
The opposition leaders led by Mr Gandhi reached the Supreme Court in the evening, an hour or two earlier, the Congress legal team filed a petition at the top court, demanding ten forms of relief regarding the SIR and other decisions taken by the Election Commission. Since Rahul Gandhi could not reach the Supreme Court before the 4:30 pm deadline, the petition was filed by lawyer S Prasanna.
The stretch between Connaught Place and Mandi House was packed with protesters, while security was tightened across the national capital. Opposition leaders converged near the Connaught Place-Barakhamba Road junction for the march, organised under the banner of the INDIA opposition alliance and named “Chalo Delhi – March for Democracy.”
Rahul Gandhi, with sister Priyanka and AISA chief Neha Bora on either side led the march towards the Supreme Court, flanked by thousands of INDIA bloc supporters and leaders. After a brief march, the Opposition leaders were stopped by the police. Visuals from the ground showed Rahul Gandhi standing on top of a truck, with several Opposition leaders Akhilesh Yadav, the former West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee and Tejashwi Yadav also joining him on top of the vehicle.
Later, Rahul Gandhi himself reached the Supreme Court to seek an interim stay on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The protest marks an escalation in the opposition’s campaign against the Election Commission of India (ECI), with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi calling on Kumar to resign from his position.
Earlier in the day Mr Gandhi addressed a press conference at the Congress headquarters where he declared that the opposition’s fight would continue until the Election Commission’s leadership changed, the Constitution was upheld and the electoral system was overhauled. “Resign, turn approver; you (Kumar) have made a mistake but you are not the mind behind the mistake,” he said, addressing the chief election commissioner. He also claimed that Kumar was under pressure because of the allegations, saying, “We know Gyanesh Kumar is unable to sleep at night; I am telling him directly, ‘you will not survive as CEC’.”
The Leader of Opposition urged citizens across political affiliations to support the march, arguing that the dispute concerned the future of democracy rather than the interests of any individual party or politician. In a message posted on X, Rahul Gandhi said the INDIA alliance had previously written to the Chief Justice of India, who had directed it to file a petition. “We had written a letter to the CJI. He directed us to file a petition. Now, leaders of the INDIA alliance will march to the Supreme Court against ‘vote theft’ and file the petition,” he said.
He appealed to citizens to join the march in person or express their support from wherever they were. “In this fight to protect democracy and the Constitution, fellow citizens, let us march step in step with us. Reach Connaught Place and become part of this march. If you can’t come, raise your voice from wherever you are!” he wrote, using the hashtag #ChaloDilli. “We invite all Indians to support us,” he added. “If people from the BJP also think that an attack is being made on the Constitution, then you come too. This is a fight to save the Constitution, a fight for your future.”
Gandhi said the opposition was engaged in several political battles simultaneously and sought to portray the dispute as a broader contest over public confidence in the government. He added that the opposition wanted to demonstrate that Indians would not be intimidated by political pressure. “We want India to believe that India is not scared of anything. Forget Narendra Modi, India can never be scared of anyone,” he said. “We are fighting multiple battles… We are winning on all fronts.”
Rahul Gandhi said the opposition’s campaign would not end with Monday’s march, arguing that sustained public mobilisation would be necessary to protect democratic institutions. He said resistance to the Election Commission’s actions had existed previously but had not resulted in protests on the streets on the present scale. The former Congress president urged people to remain patient and persistent, warning that political change and the protection of democratic institutions could not be achieved overnight.
He described the protests as a “tandav,” a term associated with the Hindu god Shiva, and said the movement was open to anyone willing to participate. “This is like Shiva’s dance and anyone can join Shiva’s ‘baraat’ (wedding procession),” he said. “This fight is not going to stop. It will continue even if it takes days or years.”
The Opposition’s campaign against Gyanesh Kumar intensified after a report in a section of the media which said two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had recorded objections at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months. According to the report, most of the objections concerned decisions and orders relating to the SIR of electoral rolls.
The report has become a focal point of the opposition’s criticism of the Election Commission and its decision-making process. Opposition parties have demanded Kumar’s resignation, arguing that the reported disagreements raise questions about the conduct and independence of the poll panel. The Election Commission has defended its internal deliberations, saying differences of opinion are a normal feature of decision-making in any institution.
In a challenge to the Delhi police, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convener Saurav Das on Monday said the government’s decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a protest site was “unacceptable” and the CJP “do not accept this arbitrary decision.” The remarks came soon after the Delhi police commissioner issued an order de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and named three new spots far away from Central Delhi.
Rahul Gandhi entered Supreme Court Registry as INDIA bloc leaders from the march wait outside the court’s gates. Mr Gandhi was accompanied by Priyanka Gandhi, Mallikarjuna Kharge and Akhilesh Yadav. Bus with INDIA Bloc leaders turned towards Copernicus Marg (leading to India Gate circle). Barricades were put up to stop the protesters. INDIA bloc leaders took out a march on Monday towards SC in demand of resignation of CEC.
One of the principal demands of the Opposition is the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in the petition which has been listed as ‘Rahul Gandhi v. Election Commission of India’ on the Supreme Court website. Following are the 10 main points in the petition:
A directive should be issued to the Election Commission of India to submit to the Court all complete files, agreements, minutes, meeting records, and records of objections related to the disputed Special Intensive Revision (SIR). This must include relevant ECINET and ERONET access logs and complete file notings pertaining to the decision to initiate the SIR on June 24, 2025.
This directive should be issued to safeguard rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and to enforce Article 324.
- Examination Of The Constitutional Validity Of SIR Decisions
An appropriate order should be issued to examine whether the disputed decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision comply with Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and the principles laid down by this Court in the T.N. [case]… …whether they have been taken in accordance with the law laid down in the Seshan v. Union of India (1995) case. If any decision was taken without proper statutory authority, it should be set aside.
- Action Against Responsible Officials
Directions should be issued to take appropriate action against persons responsible for any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions governing the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. This should also include action under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, where necessary.
- Redressal Of The Petitioner’s Grievances
The Election Commission should be directed to take an appropriate decision on the current petition and related matters, and to ensure that every decision of the Election Commission regarding the SIR is taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act and duly recorded.
- Directive To Align Online Form-6 With Prescribed Rules
The Election Commission should be directed to ensure that the online Form-6 conforms to the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. No changes deviating from the prescribed form should be made unless the rules are duly amended following the applicable procedure.
- Demand For An Audit By An Independent Committee
An independent committee should be constituted under the chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court judge. It should also include technical experts and eminent citizens.
The committee should be entrusted with the following tasks within a stipulated timeframe:
To conduct an independent inquiry and audit regarding the deletion of names from and amendments to the electoral rolls during the SIR
To examine access to the electoral roll database and the changes made therein.
This should also include ECINET and ERONET.
To conduct a comprehensive review of the technical design and architecture regarding decisions, policies, procedures, protocols, and the use and deployment of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
To take into account global best practices with the aim of ensuring free and fair elections.
- Directive To Make Public Names And Reasons For Deletion Of Voters During SIR
The Election Commission should be directed to publish, on a booth-wise basis, the names of all voters deleted from the electoral roll during the SIR.
Along with this, the following details should also be made public:
The reason for the deletion of each voter’s name.
Classification of deleted names based on gender and age.
An effective and functional mechanism for the re-inclusion of voters who are found eligible to be on the electoral roll.
- Directive Not To Delete Any Voter’s Name Without Notice And Hearing
The respondents should be directed not to delete any voter’s name from the electoral roll without serving notice as per the law and without providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing.
Furthermore, in Punjab and other states where elections are due, eligible persons should be permitted to apply for the inclusion of their names in the electoral roll up to the cut-off date prescribed by law.
- Demand For Interim Stay On Ongoing SIR Process
An interim directive should be issued to suspend the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across all states until the issues raised in the present petition are considered and adjudicated. This demand is made with the aim of protecting the rights of eligible voters and upholding the fairness and integrity of the electoral process.
- Demand For Issuance Of Other Orders Deemed Appropriate By Court
It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court pass any other or additional orders — considering the facts and circumstances of the case — that it deems appropriate and necessary to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process and the voting rights of every eligible citizen.