Petition in Bombay High Court seeks stay on SIR in Maharashtra, restoration of voter names

A petition in the BombayHigh Court’s Kolhapur Bench asks the court to quash 14 orders and changes in the Election Commission of India (ECI), stop the SIR process in Maharashtra, restore names removed from voter lists, and postpone Assembly elections in States where the process prepared rolls. The four petitioners are Maharashtra residents. They cite an Indian Express report and records of objections from two Election Commissioners.

Also read | Deep rot: On the Election Commission of India’s functioning during its SIR

The petition names the ECI, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, as respondents. It asks the court to direct the Commission to place on record the 14 orders and the dissent notes of Sandhu and Joshi.

The petitioners are Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar, Gaurav Suryakant Nakharekar, Aadesh Shashikant Bhatkar, and Smitali Nilesh Narvekar. Advocate Asim Sarode and associates represent them.

The petition relies on an Indian Express report dated September 23, 2026. It says Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Joshi recorded objections on 14 occasions in 10 months over voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, the database, the work of officers who register voters and software processes.

The petition lists several instances. It says a declaration field was added to Form 6 in July 2026. An Election Commissioner wrote that Form 6 could not be changed without an amendment to the rules, but the change was implemented. A note by Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Joshi sought a panel meeting to review Form 6. The file was marked “Approved by ECI” and sent to the press without a meeting.

It also lists a shift of control over the voter database from State servers to an IT division in New Delhi; software that blocked officers who register voters from overriding deletions; a refusal to restore 97 voters in Goa; deletion orders in West Bengal districts without files to Sandhu and Joshi; and a decision to nominate a vendor for SIR software without panel clearance.

The petition cites a June 2026 change that blocked linking of voter ID and Aadhaar through the internet in Maharashtra districts, including Kolhapur and Sangli. It cites Joshi’s warning about an error rate of over 4.2% in software-driven deletions. It cites an audit that flagged anomalies in over 13 crore names and an order to seal the report. It cites SIR observer appointments and rejection of appeals through software. It cites a circular that barred Sandhu and Joshi from speaking to the media. It cites publication of a SIR notification under “By Order of the Commission” after Sandhu and Joshi refused to sign.

The petition says it does not call an election into question or challenge the correctness of a roll or the SIR process. It says the question is whether the Commission followed Section 18 and whether the process met transparency requirements. The petitioners sent a notice to the Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner on September 23, 2026. They are seeking records under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The petition seeks a writ of mandamus or another writ to quash the 14 orders and changes. It seeks a direction to place the orders and dissent notes on record. It seeks restoration of voters deleted during SIR in Maharashtra. It seeks a hold on Assembly elections in States until rolls are approved by a majority of the Commission. It seeks a stay on operation, publication, and use of the rolls generated under SIR. It seeks a committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to inquire into deletions and software blockages.

The Election Commission issued a press note on September 23, 2026. It said the observations of the Election Commissioners were part of deliberations and that decisions on roll revision, including SIR, were taken by the Commission. The petition says the press note did not address the objections. An Indian Express report on September 24, 2026, carried a clarification that views that differ are part of decision-making.

The petitioners say the Chief Election Commissioner failed to perform his official duties and that protection under Section 16 of the Act does not apply to acts that bypass the process under Section 18. The Commission has not filed a response.

Advocates Asim Sarode, Shriya Awale, Saklen Mujawar, Sudarshan Kelgane, Arya Rajebhosale, Tripti Gaikwad, Prerna Bansode, Rishikesh Palwade, and Sachin Banait represent the petitioners.