Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission Response to Maharashtra Voter Roll Revision Challenge

Notice issued on voter roll challenge

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India on a petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Maharashtra. The petition is Arun Anandagiri v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1330 of 2026. Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter on October 26 and listed it for November 5. The Court did not at this stage decide whether the revision was lawful or whether any individual deletion was valid.

The petition concerns the practical route by which a person whose name disappears during revision can return to the roll. Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, appearing for the petitioner, said the process had affected a very large number of electors. The alleged figures were advanced by counsel; they are disputed matters for examination after the Commission responds. The distinction between an allegation in court and a judicial finding is especially important in an electoral roll case.

Figures and Form 6 concern

Counsel submitted that approximately one third of Maharashtra’s nine crore voters had been struck off and that about 1.22 crore names were removed on a “logical discrepancy” ground. He said many residents of Mumbai and Pune had moved because of redevelopment and feared that administrative searches had incorrectly treated them as absent. Those statements describe the petitioner’s case, not an audited count accepted by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner also challenged the reported practice of asking a previously registered voter to file Form 6. The form is generally associated with applications for inclusion of a name in an electoral roll. Counsel argued that a person who had voted before might be troubled by the declaration required on the form and asked for a distinct route for deleted electors. The Chief Justice orally said that nobody would be prosecuted for applying. The Court has not yet resolved the legal question about the form or issued a detailed ruling on its wording.

No ex parte extension

The petitioner sought an extension of the deadline for claims and objections, and asked the Court to prevent finalisation of the roll while the challenge was pending. The Bench declined to make either order without first hearing the Election Commission. It indicated that appropriate directions could be considered if the material later showed that voters needed more time. That leaves the existing timetable in place unless it is changed by the Commission or a later court order.

This procedural posture limits what can be inferred. Notice requires the respondent to answer the petition. It is not a judicial endorsement of the deletion figures, the Form 6 practice, or the petitioner’s proposed remedy. Equally, declining immediate relief does not validate the revision. The Bench kept those questions open for the next hearing.

The dispute sits within the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which governs electoral rolls, together with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sections 21 to 23 of the Act address preparation, revision, correction and inclusion of names. The court proceedings reported so far have focused on the administration of the revision and access to a workable claim process, not on a final interpretation of those provisions.

What to watch next

The Election Commission’s response will be central to testing the petitioner’s assertions. It may clarify the number and grounds of deletions, how relocated voters were identified, what notices were issued, the role of Form 6 and the availability of other remedies. The Court may then decide whether an extension, revised procedure or other direction is warranted.

For affected voters, the immediate lesson is narrower than either side’s larger claim: the Supreme Court has taken up the grievance, but it has not suspended the revision or reopened the deadline by this order. The November 5 hearing is the next identified opportunity for an operative direction. Any statement about prosecution should be read as the Chief Justice’s oral assurance in this hearing, pending formal clarification in a written order.