Owaisi seeks Supreme Court review verdict upholding SIR in Bihar

Millat Times Desk

14 October 2026 (Publish: 11:31 AM IST)

0

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its judgment upholding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, citing fresh reports that raise questions about the poll panel’s decision-making process.

Owaisi, a Lok Sabha member, has filed the petition as an elector, an elected representative and the leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). Although he was not a party to the original case, the petition notes that the party’s Bihar unit president has separately challenged aspects of the SIR process.

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, upheld the legality of the Bihar SIR exercise, observing that electoral roll revisions advance the constitutional objective of ensuring free and fair elections.

Owaisi’s review plea relies on subsequent media reports concerning decisions allegedly taken without the concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, over a period of about 10 months.

The petition argues that these disclosures raise questions about the ECI’s internal functioning, changes to voter registration forms and the procedures followed during electoral roll revisions.

The reports have emerged amid protests in Delhi and other parts of the country demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, greater accountability within the ECI and an independent audit of voter deletions during the SIR exercise.

The review petition cites publicly available reports and journalistic investigations, arguing that the relevant internal correspondence, file notings and official records remain undisclosed. It asks the Supreme Court to consider the newly reported material and direct the ECI to produce the relevant records.

Referring to the Bihar SIR judgment, Owaisi’s plea argues that judicial intervention remains warranted when a decision-making process is arbitrary or a measure is wholly disproportionate to its stated objective.

The petition specifically refers to paragraph 75 of the judgment, which discussed the limits on the ECI’s exercise of powers under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act. It argues that the Commission’s actions must remain within the law, be supported by reasons for invoking its special powers and comply with the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

“It is precisely the legality of the Commission’s decision-making process that has now come into question,” the plea states.

It further alleges that despite submitting extensive affidavits and supporting documents in the original proceedings, the ECI did not disclose internal objections reportedly raised by its own members over decisions and directions concerning the SIR exercise.

The petition also refers to a report by The Reporters’ Collective, published on October 9, which said that during the SIR in Uttar Pradesh, the ECI’s software automatically generated 85,854 voter-deletion forms without specifying a reason.

According to the plea, the reported practice raises concerns about procedural safeguards and the independence of officials responsible for considering objections to voter deletions.

The petition argues that officials tasked with examining objections may effectively have been made to initiate deletion requests based on their own determinations, potentially raising questions about compliance with the 1960 rules.

Owaisi contends that the material cited in the review was not available to him, or could not have been produced, before the court delivered its judgment because the relevant records were held exclusively by the ECI.

The plea warns that leaving the judgment unchanged could amount to judicial approval of a decision-making process whose material aspects had not been placed before the court during the original hearing.