SC notice to the EC on the SIR plea

This note is NP EXPLAINS. The stamp is verified for the notices and for the direction to preserve CCTV and digital footage. The contempt matter is developing. The check was at 7:20 pm IST on 15 October 2026. The post went up at about 7:30 pm IST the same day.

On 15 October 2026 a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The notice is on W.P.(C) 1351/2026, a petition by Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Tejashwi Yadav, Supriya Sule, Sanjay Raut and others. LiveLaw and The New Indian Express report that it was filed on 12 October. The court tagged the petition with pending SIR cases, the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, NDTV Profit, The New Indian Express and Mint report the notice.

The petition challenges the SIR. The prayers are the petitioners' demand, not a court finding. LiveLaw lists them: the SIR records; booth-wise lists of deleted voters, with reasons; no deletion without notice and a hearing; an audit led by a retired Supreme Court judge; and suspension of the SIR while the case is pending. Allegations in those prayers remain allegations.

Issuing notice means the court asked the commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners for replies. It is not a stay on the SIR. It is not a ruling on the allegations. It is not a contempt finding. Reports checked for this note do not give a next date.

The same bench issued notice on separate pleas over the 12 October march. Those pleas include the denotification of Jantar Mantar. LiveLaw reports that one of them, by advocate Digant Mishra and others, seeks protest rules near courts and seeks criminal contempt against the leaders. Those are prayers, not findings. The court directed agencies to preserve CCTV and digital footage. LiveLaw also reports notices on pleas by Asaduddin Owaisi and Digvijaya Singh. This note stops at those notices.

The lines below are oral remarks, as reporters carried them, not the text of a written order. The Chief Justice said, "Nobody can browbeat us." LiveLaw, The Times of India and Mint also carry, "We are not sitting in ivory towers." He said, "We would also ask one of the petitioners about his conduct." LiveLaw quotes "one of the petitioners" and does not name anyone inside that sentence. This note says one petitioner. The Times of India reports that the remark referred to Rahul Gandhi, and to how crowds entered the Supreme Court premises. That naming is The Times of India's.

The Times of India and LiveLaw report that the 12 October march, Chalo Dilli – March for Democracy, followed the Chief Justice declining a meeting sought for a memorandum. That decline is a separate published note: CJI declines an INDIA bloc meeting and points to a petition.

A different published note covers voters left off Delhi's draft roll, Form 6, and a hearing moved to 28 October: Delhi SIR: court moves the deleted-voters hearing to 28 October. That case and these 15 October notices are separate events.

The same day, in a separate contempt matter, Home Secretary Govind Mohan filed a 15 October affidavit. It offered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" over the 11 October contempt notice on the Delhi curbs. It says there was no wilful non-compliance with the 9 October order. It states that cellular internet was suspended from 10 pm on 9 October to 10 pm on 10 October, within about 4 km of Raisina Hill, and that Wi-Fi and broadband were excluded. It asks the court to discharge the contempt notice and to modify the 11 October order. Bar & Bench reports that the 11 October notice recorded a prima facie case and went to the Home Secretary, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the DMRC chair. The Economic Times, with ANI, and The Times of India report the affidavit. The contempt matter is developing. The affidavit's request is not an order closing the notice.