Loading...
SC flags 14 defects in Rahul Gandhi-led opposition leaders' petition
The defects include a ₹220 shortfall in court fees and missing vakalatnamas for nine of the 11 petitioners

SC flags 14 defects in Rahul Gandhi-led opposition leaders' petition

Oct 13, 2026
08:10 am

What's the story

The Supreme Court will not hear a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 10 other leaders of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc on Tuesday. The court registry has flagged 14 defects in the petition, including a ₹220 shortfall in court fees and an illegible photocopy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's identity card. The petitioners also failed to submit vakalatnamas for nine of the 11 petitioners, including prominent opposition leaders such as Akhilesh Yadav and Tejashwi Prasad Yadav.

Legal proceedings

Petition seeks independent inquiry into electoral rolls revision

The petitioners' legal team has requested that the matter be listed on Wednesday after curing the defects.

The plea seeks an independent inquiry into decisions allegedly taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

It also demands that the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls be suspended pending this inquiry.

Respondents named

Why 'private parties' have been arrayed as respondents: Registry query

The petition names all three election commissioners, Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Vivek Joshi, as respondents.

The registry also raised a query as to why "private parties" have been arrayed as respondents in a writ petition of public interest.

The filing came after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a meeting with Gandhi and Kharge but assured an expeditious hearing if they approached the court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Protest aftermath

Petition comes after 'March for Democracy' halted by police

The legal move comes after a "March for Democracy" protest was halted by police barricades near the Supreme Court.

The petitioners say they are acting in discharge of their public duties to "protect the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage" and ensure free, fair, transparent elections.

They do not seek to reopen questions about SIR's validity but question compliance with constitutional safeguards in its implementation.

ADVERTISEMENT