Bombay HC Moves Over Maharashtra SIR, Petition Seeks Reinstatement of Deleted Voters

Two writ petitions have been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra.

The petitions seek restoration of voters whose names were deleted and raise questions over the process used to revise the rolls.

The petitions were filed a day after The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners had raised objections to certain decisions taken during the SIR exercise. Among the reliefs sought are directions to the ECI to disclose 14 decisions linked to the revision process, the criteria used for polling-station rationalisation and specifications related to ECINET.

One petition, filed by four Maharashtra residents through advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur bench, seeks the quashing of the 14 administrative orders and restoration of voters deleted during the SIR. The petitioners have also sought disclosure of recorded dissents and an independent judicial committee to examine what they describe as data deletions and software-related restrictions during the exercise.

The petitioners have further sought that forthcoming Assembly elections be deferred until electoral rolls are prepared and approved as legally compliant. The plea is expected to be mentioned before the court on September 28.

A separate petition filed by two Mumbai residents through advocate Hitendra Gandhi focuses on the manner in which the SIR is being implemented. It raises concerns over the collection of documents during enumeration and the exclusion of voters classified under categories such as Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD).

The petition seeks disclosure of the reasons and methodology behind the Maharashtra SIR, along with the relevant ECINET specifications. It also asks the ECI to act on a representation submitted by the petitioners in April 2026 and to quash the SIR-related directions issued for Maharashtra.

The petitioners have also sought safeguards against wrongful exclusion, including a requirement that no voter be removed without statutory notice, an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order. The plea argues that unresolved questions about a voter’s status should not result in exclusion without following the prescribed legal process.

The petitions do not themselves establish that the alleged irregularities occurred; those claims will be subject to consideration by the Bombay High Court. The cases add a fresh legal challenge to the ongoing debate over the procedures and safeguards surrounding the SIR exercise in Maharashtra.