PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Former CJI-Led Review Of Election Commission, "Absolute Prohibition" On Religious Campaigning

The petition has been filed under Article 32 by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who appears as petitioner-in-person, against the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and the ECI through its Secretary. Apart from the reform-oriented reliefs, it also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to enforce "an absolute prohibition against election campaigning, canvassing, or publicity utilizing religious tags, religious symbols, communal appeals, sectarian identity, or hate speech".

The petitioner has framed the plea as one that is "intended to be non-partisan and prospective". In the synopsis, it states that the petition "does not seek a finding against any political party or individual office-holder, nor does it seek to challenge the result of any particular election."

The petition's starting premise is that the Commission's constitutional position, by itself, does not guarantee its independence. "The constitutional responsibility of the ECI under Article 324 is central to the conduct of free and fair elections. However, institutional independence is not secured by constitutional status alone," the plea reads. It states that independence "also depends on clear decision-making procedures, adequate professional capacity, transparent and lawful electoral-roll processes, accessible remedies for electors, reliable digital systems, timely disclosure of aggregate performance information and safeguards against avoidable administrative error."

On the size of the Commission, the petition points out that Article 324(2) "permits the number of other Election Commissioners, if any, to be fixed from time to time; it does not mandate a five-member Commission or any other fixed strength." It therefore seeks "an evidence-based assessment of workload, allocation of business, institutional capacity and whether the present strength is adequate."

The petitioner relies on T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), for the proposition that the Commission is a multi-member body in which "statutory authority is vested in the Commission as a collective body and not in any individual office-holder", and on Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023), in which, according to the petition, the Constitution Bench emphasised that "institutional norms must be transparent, objective, and accountable".

It also cites the Law Commission's 255th Report on Electoral Reforms (2015), which, the petition says, recommended equal protection for all Election Commissioners on removability, a consultative appointment mechanism and a permanent, independent Secretariat. The petition also refers to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which, it says, requires business of the Commission to be transacted "as far as possible" unanimously and, in case of difference, by majority.

Against this framework, the petition places on record an investigative report published by The Indian Express which, it says, disclosed that "over a 10-month period, two Election Commissioners (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi) recorded written objections on at least 14 occasions regarding unilateral decisions taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar."

According to the petition, the objections "pertained to unauthorized alterations to statutory Form 6, centralisation of the electoral database, unapproved appeal filings in West Bengal, and work allocation orders." It adds that the Commission's response, as reported the following day, acknowledged the existence of internal dissenting notes "while describing them as routine 'suggestions'", but "failed to clarify who authorized changes to statutory Form 6 or restricted digital portal access for state-level Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs)."

"Differences within a multi-member body are not, by themselves, evidence of illegality; reasoned disagreement may be an important institutional safeguard," it states. "The reform question is whether the ECI has consistent procedures for recording decisions and dissent, allocating responsibility, preserving the record and publishing appropriate information so that decisions can be understood and reviewed without compromising security, personal data or legitimate confidentiality." Ground 18 adds that internal disagreements reported in the media "should not be treated as conclusive proof of bias or illegality", though "they nonetheless highlight the importance of transparent institutional protocols that record decisions and dissent accurately and preserve a reliable official record."

On electoral-roll revision, the petition contends that accuracy and inclusion are not competing goals. "Accurate electoral rolls and protection against wrongful exclusion are complementary objectives," Ground 6 reads. "A lawful process must permit identification of ineligible entries while ensuring that eligible citizens receive the notice, opportunity to respond, verification and remedy prescribed by law."

It also states that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises and related revisions across Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal "generated widespread litigation and administrative concerns regarding non-issuance of individual show-cause notices under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and mass voter exclusions."

The petition draws particular attention to West Bengal. Relying on media reports based on an affidavit of the Commission, it states that "approximately 38.20 lakh appeals had been filed and approximately 1.02 lakh disposed of by the relevant reporting date, leaving a substantial reported backlog", and that the Commission "was also reported to have sought an increase in appellate tribunals from 19 to 42." The petitioner qualifies these figures in the same breath: "These are dated reported figures, not a finding that every deletion was unlawful; they illustrate the need to assess whether appellate capacity, staffing, timelines and systems are sufficient to provide meaningful relief before the practical opportunity to vote is lost."

The same point is pressed in the grounds. "A backlog of appeals is not by itself proof that each deletion was unlawful; however, prolonged pendency can undermine the practical value of a remedy," Ground 9 reads. Ground 7 argues that "notice, hearing, reasons and appeal are meaningful only where the elector can understand the process, submit documents, receive acknowledgement, track the application and obtain a decision in time to make the remedy practically effective."

The petition also refers to orders of the Supreme Court dated 24.02.2026 and 02.04.2026 in the West Bengal SIR proceedings directing expansion of the pool of judicial officers and requisitioning of central forces for their protection, and to an independent inquiry into SIR exercises commenced by a panel of retired judges including Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice A.K. Patnaik, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmad, Justice Rekha Sharma and Justice Anjana Prakash under the Lawyers Association for Constitution.

Digital systems administering statutory rights must be Independently audited

The fourth issue raised is the reliability of the Commission's technology. The plea cites a report of 06.10.2026 that judicial officers hearing West Bengal SIR appeals "flagged severe functional limitations in the ECI portal regarding notice generation, hearing schedules, and voter restoration", and a report of the same date that "2,70,313 electors in Maharashtra's draft roll were depicted as aged between 101 and 150 years due to a default birth year glitch (1900)". The latter, it says, demonstrates "the urgent necessity for automated validation checks, version control, and independent digital system audits before publishing draft rolls".

It also refers to reports that the Commission had announced that Form 6, the form for enrolment of new voters, would revert to the version prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, after questions were raised over a modified form, and to a Reuters report that the Commission had initiated a technical review of its voter-roll software through an internal committee of senior officials and independent IT experts.

"Election-related digital systems are part of the administration of statutory rights and must be tested for accuracy, reliability, accessibility, cybersecurity and compliance with law," Ground 12 reads. "Independent technical audit should assess system design and actual workflows, not merely the written policy, and should include safeguards against mass errors and delayed corrections." Ground 16 distinguishes the two kinds of scrutiny sought: a technical audit "examines code, data pipelines, validation rules, permissions, logs, security and resilience", while a governance audit "examines responsibility allocation, approval of changes, communication between central and State authorities, escalation, correction and accountability."

The petition also asks that digitalisation not shut out vulnerable voters. Ground 14 states that "offline alternatives and targeted assistance are necessary to ensure that digitalisation does not create an unreasonable barrier for homeless persons, migrant workers, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, people with limited digital literacy or persons without stable internet access."

It notes that the Commission, by a press release of 26.09.2026, directed Booth Level Officers to collect documents at the doorstep of discrepant voters, strengthen online hearings and set up help desks and special camps for vulnerable and homeless electors.

The plea relies on Article 325, on Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 "as authoritatively interpreted by a 7-Judge Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, (2017)", on Items 1 and 3 of the Model Code of Conduct, and on Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which, it says, empowers the Commission "to suspend or withdraw the recognition of political parties defying the MCC."

"Despite this comprehensive legal architecture, political parties and candidates increasingly resort to religious tags, sectarian symbols, communal slogans, and divisive rhetoric during election campaigns to polarize the electorate," the plea states, adding that the Commission "fails to take swift, effective, and uniform penal action under Paragraph 16A or initiate criminal proceedings."

In the statement of facts, the petitioner alleges that the Commission "routinely restricts its response to belated, advisory show-cause notices or brief campaign bans", failing to direct prosecution under Sections 153A, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code or the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, "thereby allowing the purity of the electoral stream to be severely corrupted by communal polarization." Such inaction, the petition contends, "erodes poll purity, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, and 325 of the Constitution".

On electronic voting machines, the petition deliberately limits itself. It refers to the judgment of 26 April 2024 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and states in Ground 20 that "any further relief concerning EVM/VVPAT should be confined to compliance, clarity of procedures and lawful preservation of records, and should not contradict the judgment." The synopsis similarly records that the petition does not "assert that EVMs have been manipulated without evidence".

Reliefs Sought

The petitioner has principally prayed that the Court constitute, or direct the constitution of, an independent expert committee under the chairpersonship of a former Chief Justice of India or a former Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Court, "with expertise in constitutional law, election administration, public administration, statistics, information technology, cybersecurity, data protection and voter access, to examine institutional shortcomings and recommend systemic electoral reforms". The committee, the petition asks, should examine the adequacy of the Commission's strength and workload under Article 324(2), allocation of business and collective decision-making, the recording of reasons and dissent, the preservation and disclosure of significant directions, electoral-roll revision procedures, notice and hearing, appeal capacity and disposal timelines, digital-system reliability and technical audits, staffing, training and financial arrangements, accessibility of voter services, statutory protections and accountability safeguards, and the implementation of binding judicial directions.

The petition further asks that the committee recommend minimum standards for roll revision and voter remedies, including acknowledgements, status tracking, accessible notices, reasoned decisions wherever required by law, time-bound disposal, offline assistance, correction of verified data errors and "preservation of a secure audit trail". It seeks a direction to the respondents to preserve and, if so directed, produce the relevant official records, affidavits, instructions, audit logs, versions of forms and systems and aggregate data, "subject to privacy, security and lawful confidentiality protections". The committee is to consult the Commission, the Union, State authorities, political parties, civil-society organisations, researchers, technology experts and affected electors, and to submit its report within six months, identifying "which recommendations can be implemented under existing law and which require statutory, rule-based or constitutional changes". The Union and the Commission are then to file "a reasoned action-taken report" within a period fixed by the Court.

On religious campaigning, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Commission to strictly enforce the prohibition on religious and communal campaigning by political parties, candidates and star campaigners "in strict compliance with Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Model Code of Conduct." The petition further asks that the Commission be directed to frame binding, time-bound operational guidelines requiring adjudication of complaints of religious or communal campaigning "within 48 hours", "mandatory invocation of Paragraph 16A" of the Symbols Order to suspend or withdraw the recognition and symbols of parties that "systematically engage in or condone religious campaigning", and "automatic registration of FIRs and initiation of disqualification proceedings against contesting candidates and star campaigners who make appeals based on religion or use religious tags to secure votes."

The petitioner has described the overall relief as "prospective, non-partisan and institutionally neutral", stating in Ground 24 that it "does not seek to invalidate any election, interfere with the merits of individual electoral-roll cases or attribute motive to any person; it seeks a framework that protects both roll accuracy and the effective participation of eligible electors."

The petition is accompanied by an application seeking permission for the petitioner to appear and argue in person.