INDIA Bloc petitions Supreme Court over voter roll discrepancies, demanding suspension of SIR and restoration of 133 million (13.30 crore) voters.

The Congress party has escalated its confrontation with the Election Commission of India (ECI), staging a high-profile march to the Supreme Court over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The opposition alleges widespread, deliberate deletions of voters and has demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

However, official records show the SIR is a routine statutory exercise under the Representation of the People Act, conducted periodically across states to purge deceased, shifted, and duplicate entries via booth-level verification.

Analysts point out that claims of targeted suppression lack forensic proof, noting that Form 7 objections and draft roll revisions follow an established public scrutiny window open to all political agents. Observers also highlight that the timing of the agitation coincides with key regional elections, framing the march as a tactical bid to consolidate cadre momentum rather than a response to demonstrated systemic fraud.

1. The INDIA bloc claims the Special Intensive Revision process removed 133 million voters (13.30 crore). The coalition asserts this reduction harms electoral integrity. They are calling for immediate judicial intervention.

2. The opposition submitted a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu on October 9, 2026. It calls for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner and the restoration of paper ballots. The signatories argue these measures are essential to restore public trust in the electoral system.

3. The Congress party reported that 250,000 people (2.5 lakh) participated in the march on October 12, 2026. Supporters cite the turnout as evidence of public concern over electoral roll revisions.

4. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a private meeting. The bloc followed his advice and filed a formal petition. Supporters say this action shows their commitment to using legal channels to address grievances.

1. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra criticized Rahul Gandhi for his actions. Patra accused Gandhi of dragging the President into a political confrontation. Patra argued that the opposition's approach is politically motivated rather than based on procedural concerns.

2. Member of Parliament (MP) Ravi Shankar Prasad stated that the country should be governed by Parliament rather than street protests. He argued that the opposition's reliance on mass demonstrations undermines democratic institutions.

3. The Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites. This decision reduced the available locations for public assembly. Security forces cleared many protesters from the site during the event. Authorities cited concerns regarding public order and site management.

4. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rejected a request for a meeting to discuss electoral irregularities. He directed the opposition to the court's formal channels. The court signaled that the matter requires standard legal procedures instead of informal discussions.