The Supreme Court Registry has identified 14 procedural errors in the joint petition raised by the Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi and 10 other INDIA block leaders against electoral irregularities and the SIR process of electoral rolls. These defects include a ₹220 deficit in court fees, lack of lawyer authorizations for nine of the petitioners, and an unclear copy of the identity card of Congress party president, Mallikarjun Kharge.
The petition was filed on October 12, 2026, with the plea of intervening in the working of the Election Commission of India and the revision of electoral rolls. The petitioning came in response to a rally held in central Delhi by the opposition leaders and their supporters opposing alleged electoral irregularities which have been termed as “vote chori” or vote theft by the opposition leaders.
As reported on October 13, 2026, the petition has not been accepted for listing in the Supreme Court owing to pending objections from the registry side.
You Might Be Interested In
Rahul Gandhi’s SIR Petition: What Is the ₹220 Court Fee Shortfall?
The ₹220 deficit means an additional court fee which, according to the Supreme Court Registry, should be paid for the petition. It is the eleventh out of fourteen objections noted while scrutinizing the petition.
Missing or unsigned vakalatnamas, which are legal documents allowing the representatives to appear for petitioners in court, have also been pointed out by the registry as an objection. Vakalatnamas were allegedly not available for nine out of eleven petitioners. Other objections concern the photocopy of Kharge’s identity card, which the legal team has to provide in a clear readable format.
Other objections concern the supporting documents, annexures, formatting, and pagination. These are the problems with the dates and case numbers of documents, missing of supporting materials, the necessity to make the colored copies of two pages, small fonts, unclear text, missing or wrongly numbered pages. The last objection concerns the inclusion of individual names of Election Commissioners as respondents in the writ petition.
Comments
0 commentsNo comments yet — be the first.