Congress general secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala said the SIR had removed about 13 crore names across 19 states since June 2025, including 1.43 crore in Karnataka. He demanded a halt to the SIR, the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and an independent IT and forensic audit of roll databases.
NOTE Karnataka's CEO put draft-stage exclusions at 1,07,96,339 of 5,54,32,314 electors. The claim does not say how its 1.43 crore figure for Karnataka was reached.
What was said or done
2025 · 4 charges
What was said or done
9 Dec 2025ClaimNot yet checked
Rahul Gandhi (Congress), with Manish Tewari; government reply by Arjun Ram Meghwal, Law Minister
In the Lok Sabha debate on electoral reforms, Rahul Gandhi alleged 1.2 lakh duplicate photos in the Bihar SIR roll, sought machine-readable rolls for parties a month before polls and withdrawal of the rule allowing CCTV footage to be destroyed. Congress's Manish Tewari questioned the SIR's legal basis. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said SIRs were held several times under Congress governments.
Replying to the debate, Home Minister Amit Shah said the SIR falls within the Commission's constitutional powers and cannot be answered by the government in Parliament, cited earlier intensive revisions under Congress governments, and said the exercise removes the dead, the shifted, duplicates and foreigners. When Rahul Gandhi asked him to debate his three press conferences, Shah said Parliament would not run to his wishes.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to INDIA bloc leaders that the inordinate delay in releasing final turnout for the first two phases raised serious doubts about the data. He said the Commission should publish polling-station-wise turnout, and asked allies to protect the Commission's independence.
In a five-page reply with annexures, the Commission called Kharge's allegations unwarranted, without facts and a deliberate attempt to spread confusion. It said his public letter mid-election could deter voters. It pointed to earlier Congress statements questioning EVMs as a trend.
After perusing the original file, the Constitution Bench asked the Attorney General why the process was completed within 24 hours, why the vacancy open since May was filled in a day, and why none of the four empanelled officers could serve the six-year term. The bench said it was examining the process, not Goel's credentials, and reserved judgment the same day.
The reply
24 Nov 2022Union of India (Attorney General R. Venkataramani)
Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the bench there was nothing disquieting about the appointment, that a selection mechanism and criteria existed, and that panels are drawn from a database of Secretary-rank officers. In the judgment the Court recorded his submission that there is a 'dearth' of officers who could serve a full six-year term.
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over ten months to decisions and orders they said were taken without their knowledge, on new-voter registration, deletions and restorations, West Bengal appeals and custody of the roll database, copying CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The Commission and both Commissioners did not respond to questions sent on 21 September.
The Commission said written notes and differing views among its members are standard deliberation before decisions, that Commissioners' suggestions were for improving processes, and that all its decisions over the past year, including the SIR, were unanimous decisions of the full Commission. It said ECINET runs under strict security and audit controls and that EROs and DEOs exercise their statutory powers of registration and deletion.
AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal called the SIR illegal, accused the CEC of running the Commission single-handedly, and demanded his arrest, restoration of rolls from three years earlier and fresh elections in six states and Delhi.
Congress MP Abhishek Singhvi said the report showed the CEC had sidelined his fellow Commissioners, citing the 1995 Supreme Court ruling that the Commission is a multi-member body, demanded Gyanesh Kumar's resignation and asked that all dissent notes be made public.
NOTE Section 18 of the 2023 Act sets how the three members decide: allocation of work only by unanimous decision, other business unanimously as far as possible, otherwise by majority.
By 11 July 2026 the online Form 6 on ECINET, the statutory form for new voters, carried an inserted 'declaration form' section asking whether the applicant's own name or a parent's or grandparent's name was in the last SIR roll, with booth and serial numbers. It was not marked mandatory but the form could not be submitted without answering. The downloadable paper Form 6 did not include it, and no amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had been notified. It applied in all SIR states except Bihar, and not in Assam.
Responding to the Form 6 reports, the Commission said the requirement of a Declaration Form (Annexure D) with Form 6 or Form 8 had been part of the Bihar order of 24 June 2025, the 12-state order of 27 October 2025 and the 19-state order of 14 May 2026, all decided unanimously by the three Commissioners, and that the Supreme Court upheld it on 27 May 2026. It said applicants filing the declaration need not submit any other documents.
NOTE The SIR orders the Commission cites prescribe a separate Declaration Form, headed 'To be submitted along with Form 6/Form 8'. The record holds no notified amendment to Form 6 in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (per The Indian Express's review of the Gazette, noted on sir-rules-annexure-d-declaration). The before/after text is on the rules page.
NOTE On the SIR's legal basis, raised in the debate: the Supreme Court's later judgment of 27 May 2026 on the Bihar SIR traced the Commission's power to Section 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950.
Replying to the Commission's source-based rebuttal, Rahul Gandhi said a constitutional body should not answer through unsigned notes, and asked it to publish consolidated machine-readable voter rolls and release post-5 pm CCTV footage from Maharashtra polling booths.
The reply
17 Aug 2025Gyanesh Kumar, Chief Election Commissioner
At the National Media Centre, CEC Gyanesh Kumar said Rahul Gandhi must give a signed affidavit within seven days or apologise, failing which the allegations would be treated as baseless. He called the bias charge an insult to the Constitution, said sharing CCTV footage of voters would breach their privacy, said Maharashtra's CEO had not received a single named voter with proof, and explained last-hour turnout as an average of about 10% an hour.
NOTE The CEC's 17 Aug 2025 press conference is filed as a response to the Mahadevapura charge; this charge's own notes record that it also answered the CCTV and machine-readable roll points. Rule 93, amended in December 2024, governs which election papers are open to public inspection.
Rahul Gandhi posted his dissent note, which said an independent Commission depends on how commissioners are chosen, that dropping the CJI violated the Supreme Court's order, and that the process should be deferred until the court ruled. He called a midnight decision while the case was pending disrespectful and discourteous.
BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya said the dissent was politically motivated and lacked merit, and accused the Congress of misreading the Supreme Court judgment. The BJP said no rules were broken and pointed to appointments of commissioners under Congress governments.
NOTE The dissent turns on the change in the selection panel. The record documents the panel set by the Anoop Baranwal judgment until Parliament legislated (PM, Leader of Opposition, CJI) and the panel set by Section 7 of the 2023 Act (PM, Leader of Opposition, a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM).
In the Lok Sabha in early February 2025, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said he would attend the selection meeting only to certify what the Prime Minister and Home Minister decided, and that removing the CJI from the committee looked like a calculated strategy.
NOTE Section 7 of the 2023 Act sets the panel as the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.
The day after the hearing, the Commission's press note ECI/PN/102/2024 said it felt strengthened by the Supreme Court's observations. It widened its turnout releases to include absolute numbers of voters per constituency for the first five phases. It said Form 17C totals held by all candidates cannot be altered, denied any delay because the Voter Turnout App was live throughout, and spoke of a pattern of false narratives.
Chowdhury said he was sent 212 names the night before the meeting and a six-name shortlist only eight to ten minutes before it began, despite asking for bio-profiles in advance. He said he recorded dissent on procedure, not on the individuals chosen.
The reply
21 Mar 2024Union of India (conjoint reply to stay applications)
In its reply to the stay applications, the Union of India set out the timeline from 1 February and said the selection meeting was moved from 15 to 14 March on 9 March, before the court listed the stay applications for 15 March. It said the Act was made as Article 324(2) contemplates.
NOTE The Union's reply was filed against a duplicate of this entry that has since been merged into it. The record documents Chowdhury's 12 March request for profiles and the Supreme Court's 21 March order, which refused a stay and commented on the selection procedure.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the bench there was nothing disquieting about the appointment, that a selection mechanism and criteria existed, and that panels are drawn from a database of Secretary-rank officers. In the judgment the Court recorded his submission that there is a 'dearth' of officers who could serve a full six-year term.
Attributed to Union of India (Attorney General R. Venkataramani)
