Supreme Court Flags 14 Defects in Rahul Gandhi's Petition, Points to Rs 220 Court Fee Shortfall

The Supreme Court registry has reportedly flagged 14 procedural defects in a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders challenging aspects of the electoral roll revision process. The objections include a ₹220 shortfall in court fees, missing authorisation documents for several petitioners and an illegible copy of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s identity card.

The petition challenges issues surrounding the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition leaders have raised concerns about the transparency of the exercise and the possibility of eligible voters being excluded from electoral lists. According to reports, the registry identified multiple deficiencies in the submitted documents, including missing vakalatnamas—legal documents authorising advocates to represent clients in court. The required authorisation papers were reportedly missing for nine of the 11 petitioners.

The registry also raised concerns about document legibility and other filing requirements. The ₹220 court fee shortfall was among the procedural issues identified. The objections mean the petitioners must address the deficiencies in accordance with the Supreme Court’s filing procedures before the case can progress through the next stages of the judicial process.

The petition is associated with 11 opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav and NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Supriya Sule. Other opposition representatives are also part of the legal challenge. The dispute centres on the electoral roll revision process and the safeguards governing the addition and removal of voters’ names. The petitioners have sought judicial scrutiny of the Election Commission’s actions and greater transparency regarding changes to electoral lists. Electoral roll revisions are intended to maintain accurate voter records. However, concerns can arise when voters question whether names have been removed correctly or whether adequate verification and grievance procedures have been followed.

The registry’s objections relate to the petition’s filing requirements and do not constitute a judicial ruling on the allegations concerning electoral rolls. The substantive issues will depend on the proceedings and the court’s consideration of the arguments and evidence presented. The immediate next step for the petitioners is to rectify the identified defects. The subsequent progress of the case will depend on compliance with the applicable procedures and the court’s handling of the matter.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from NDTV.