Taking up a high-stakes petition challenging the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued formal notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The joint petition—filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi along with twelve other prominent opposition figures, including Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut—alleges large-scale irregularities and arbitrary deletions in voter lists. However, during the proceedings, a division bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered a stern reprimand regarding external commentary targeting the judiciary, admitting Raut’s petition only provisionally while directing the senior lawmaker to submit an official explanation regarding his recent public conduct.
Judicial Reprimand: CJI Surya Kant Warns Against Attempts to Pressure the Bench
Addressing allegations raised in court regarding public commentary and political pressure aimed at judicial functionaries, CJI Surya Kant issued a firm rejoinder from the bench:
Demand for Formal Explanation: In its formal judicial order, the bench noted that while the petition submitted by petitioner number six (Sanjay Raut) in WP(C) No. 1351/2026 is admitted for the time being, he is required to provide a clear explanation regarding his conduct on the next date of hearing.
Firm Rebuttal to Coercion: Responding firmly to submissions by counsel alleging that opposition leaders were attempting to build extraneous pressure on the judiciary, CJI Surya Kant stated unambiguously that nobody has the power to intimidate the courts.
Awareness of External Statements: Emphasizing that the bench remains fully cognizant of political discourse unfolding outside the courtroom, the CJI observed that judges do not operate in an isolated vacuum and closely track what litigating parties say publicly versus their arguments inside court.
The Spark Behind the Scrutiny: Sanjay Raut’s Remarks Over CJI Meeting Refusal
The judicial scrutiny directed at Sanjay Raut follows controversial public statements regarding interactions with the head of the judiciary:
Public Criticism of the CJI: Sanjay Raut had recently voiced strong public discontent after the Chief Justice declined an appointment to meet a political delegation comprising Rahul Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge concerning grievances against the Election Commission.
Breach of Institutional Etiquette: Legal observers noted that public criticism directed at a sitting Chief Justice for refusing private political deputations on sub-judice or sensitive institutional disputes raised questions of judicial propriety, leading the apex court to formally seek an explanation.
Notices to ECI and Gyanesh Kumar: Opposition Demands Judicial Audit of Voter Deletions
While scrutinizing the conduct of the petitioner, the Supreme Court moved forward on the core constitutional grievances highlighted by the 13 opposition leaders:
Notice to Full Election Commission: The bench directed the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to file comprehensive responses detailing the safeguards utilized during the SIR exercise.
Demand for Independent Judicial Committee: The joint petition filed by Rahul Gandhi urges the apex court to constitute an independent oversight committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, alongside non-partisan technical experts and prominent citizens.
Time-Bound Verification Audit: The petitioners have prayed for this independent judicial panel to conduct a strict, time-bound technical audit of all voter deletions, additions, and modifications carried out across constituencies during the Special Intensive Revision drive before upcoming electoral cycles.