Full Breakdown
Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Stay on Voter Deletions Amid SIR Controversy
By Drooid · · How we work
Background & Context
The Election Commission of India (ECI) launched a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories in 2025 to purge duplicate or ineligible entries. The Supreme Court affirmed the exercise’s legality in its 27 May 2026 judgment. The ECI reported that up to 13 crore names were struck off draft rolls, prompting legal challenges and public concern.
Core Judicial Decisions (October 5 2026)
On 5 October 2026 the Bombay High Court, sitting in two benches, declined interim relief for petitioners seeking to halt deletions.
- Mumbai bench – Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna held that the Supreme Court is already hearing SIR challenges and that parallel High Court proceedings would be “judicial impropriety.” The matter was adjourned for four weeks.
- Goa bench – Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar called the situation a “complete catch-22,” noting that Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 refers to the existing roll, not the draft, and warning that rejecting Form 8 applications without notice breaches natural-justice principles.
Both benches cited a November 2025 Supreme Court order directing High Courts to defer SIR-related writs.
Data & Statistics
- ECI’s 1 October press release announced a “special drive” in 20 states and UTs, noting 13 crore names struck off draft rolls.
- Former Congress leader P Chidambaram claimed 13.30 crore names were excluded and warned of costly re-enrolment.
- An Indian Express investigation cited by Justice Rohinton F Nariman reported 90 lakh disenfranchised voters, with 22 lakh appeals and a 93 % success rate for the roughly 1 lakh appeals decided.
Official Statements & Responses
The ECI maintains that SIR has “unanimous approval” of the Commission and does not conflict with the Representation of the People Act 1950. Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni told the court the Supreme Court will hear the SIR matter on 8 October. The Commission says software limitations, not policy, caused Form 8 rejections and that affected voters may submit Form 6 under the continuous-updation process.
Criticism & Opposition
- Paresh Salgaoncar (Goa) argued that forcing Form 6, intended for first-time voters, amounts to a false declaration and breaches natural justice.
- P Chidambaram questioned why the ECI did not inform the Supreme Court that excluded voters could simply re-enrol via Form 6, calling the expenditure wasteful.
Verbatim Quotes
- “If a gentleman comes and says ‘I have shifted, I am giving you [ECI] Form 8 [for change of address]’. You cannot tell him ‘I will not hear you’…You can’t do that… because the roll that is being referred to in Rule 21 [Registration of Electors Rules, 1960] is the existing roll, not the draft roll.” — Valmiki Menezes
- “Crores of rupees were spent in excluding 13,30,00,000 names. Now crores of rupees will be spent on re-enrolling the 'left out' voters. Who is responsible?” — P Chidambaram
What’s Next
- The Supreme Court will hear the consolidated SIR challenge on 8 October, with petitions seeking to declare the exercise invalid and restore deleted names.
- ECI’s special enrolment drives will begin immediately, tasking Booth Level Officers with enrolling 20–25 voters per week per state.
- Litigation in Maharashtra is scheduled for a further hearing on 22 October.
The high-court rulings, internal Commission dissent, and large-scale voter removal keep SIR at the centre of debates over electoral integrity and procedural fairness.