Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief In Maharashtra Voter Roll Revision, Defers SIR Plea By 4 Weeks

Mumbai, October 5, 2026: The Bombay High Court on Monday declined to grant any interim relief or uphold the current state of affairs regarding Maharashtra's ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, stating it would respect the Supreme Court's directives and refrain from conflicting proceedings. Chief Justice MC Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna ruled that the Supreme Court was already handling challenges concerning the SIR process and had prohibited High Courts from accepting petitions related to its legitimacy or other facets of the procedure.

"Restraining orders already exist... No benefit will be gained from concurrent litigation. Let the Supreme Court address the matter first, and we will review it later," the Chief Justice remarked. Petition Addresses Electoral Roll Issues The court was considering a complaint filed by Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) Youth President Sagar Ramesh Gawai and Rafique Ilahi Khan, expressing worries over the implementation of the SIR in Maharashtra, specifically the door-to-door enumeration and documentation collection.

Counsel Prakash Ambedkar and Hitendra Gandhi argued on behalf of the petitioners for interim orders to maintain the status quo of the electoral rolls for three months, halt the issuance of the revised rolls, and prohibit the deletion of names from the voter list until the petition was examined. The bench, however, rejected the oral plea.

"We will not issue such orders. We will uphold judicial propriety," the court declared. Petitioners Raise Potential Exclusions The petitioners contended that around 2.10 crore voters might be excluded under categories like Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD), as well as instances marked "Uncollectable Enumeration Form." They argued that these voters could be removed without mandatory statutory notifications, a chance to be heard, or reasoned judgments.

Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni represented the Election Commission of India (ECI). The petitioners clarified that they were not aiming to halt the SIR process or question the ECI's right to conduct it. Instead, they sought improved transparency in the methodology and legal foundation of the revision, disclosure of orders and rationales for the exercise, multilingual instructions, and equal access to both physical and digital verification methods.