Supreme Court issues notice on Maharashtra SIR plea, refuses deadline extension without hearing ECI
He argued that voters whose names had been removed were being asked to submit Form 6, which is intended for fresh voter registration, despite having voted in previous elections.
Published: Oct 26, 2026, 05:30 PM IST
| Updated: Oct 26, 2026, 05:35 PM IST
He argued that voters whose names had been removed were being asked to submit Form 6, which is intended for fresh voter registration, despite having voted in previous elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Maharashtra government on a petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra over alleged large-scale voter deletions.
However, the court declined to extend the deadline for filing claims and objections or halt publication of the final voters’ list without first hearing the poll body.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana scheduled the next hearing for November 5.
The petition, filed by Arun Anandagiri, challenges the deletion of names from the draft electoral rolls and the procedure prescribed for voters seeking to have their names restored.
Plea flags deletion of nearly 3 crore voters
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Arvind P. Datar told the court that nearly 33 per cent of Maharashtra’s approximately nine crore voters, around three crore people had been removed following the publication of the draft electoral rolls.
Of these, 1.22 crore voters had been deleted on the ground of “logical discrepancy”, Datar submitted.
He argued that voters whose names had been removed were being asked to submit Form 6, which is intended for fresh voter registration, despite having voted in previous elections.
According to the senior advocate, this requirement could expose existing voters to allegations of making a false declaration, as applicants must state that they have not been registered as voters previously.
Referring to a recent Delhi High Court order, Datar argued that an assurance against prosecution did not address the underlying issue. He urged the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to introduce a separate form for voters whose names had been deleted during the revision exercise.
“Nobody will be prosecuted,” the Bench led by CJI Surya Kant assured the petitioner’s counsel.
Court reluctant to grant immediate relief
Datar also sought an extension of the deadline for filing claims and objections, which fell on Monday, and asked the court to restrain the ECI from finalising the electoral rolls until the dispute was adjudicated.
He argued that Maharashtra did not face any immediate election that required the list to be finalised according to the existing schedule.
The Bench, however, was reluctant to pass an order without first hearing the poll body. It noted that the Supreme Court had extended deadlines during SIR exercises in other states and indicated that appropriate directions could be considered after examining the circumstances.
The matter will now be taken up on November 5.
Maharashtra SIR schedule
Under the revised schedule, the draft electoral roll in Maharashtra was published on August 31, while the deadline for filing claims and objections was extended until October 26.
The disposal of claims and objections is scheduled to continue until November 10. The final electoral roll is due to be published on November 16.
Supreme Court had earlier upheld ECI’s authority
The Supreme Court had previously upheld the ECI’s authority to conduct the SIR exercise, ruling that the revision fell within the poll body’s constitutional and statutory powers. The exercise, it said, was intended to protect the integrity of electoral rolls and ensure free and fair elections.
In its judgment delivered on May 27, the apex court held that the exercise was authorised under Article 324 of the Constitution, read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The court also ruled that procedural safeguards were in place to prevent arbitrary exclusion from electoral rolls.
It further clarified that the ECI could examine questions relating to citizenship for electoral purposes, while making clear that such scrutiny would not amount to a final determination of an individual’s citizenship.
(with IANS inputs)
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in india news and world news on Zee News.
Add Zee News as a Preferred Source
About the Author
