Supreme Court Issues Notices Over Allegations of Voter Name Removal in Maharashtra

The Supreme Court has responded to serious allegations concerning the removal of voters' names from the electoral rolls in Maharashtra. Notices have been issued to various authorities, including the Election Commission, as the court examines the claims made by a petitioner regarding the integrity of the voter registration process. With significant numbers of voters reportedly affected, the upcoming hearings could have major implications for the electoral landscape in the state. The court's decisions will be crucial in determining the future of the voter list and the rights of those impacted.

By Narendra Chaudhary Oct 26, 2026, 18:53 IST

Supreme Court's Response to Voter List Controversy

In New Delhi, the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance regarding allegations that numerous voters' names were removed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Maharashtra. The court has issued notices to the Election Commission, the central government, the Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra, and the state government. During the hearing on Monday, the apex court denied requests to extend the deadline for filing claims and objections or to halt the publication of the final voter list.

The petition was filed by Arun Anandgiri, questioning the process of removing names from the draft voter list and the procedure for re-registering voters. The petitioner expressed concerns that the removal of names during the revision process and the requirement for re-registration is a serious issue. The petition seeks a review of the entire process and relief for the affected voters.

Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, representing the petitioner, informed the court that Maharashtra has approximately nine crore voters. He claimed that after the publication of the draft voter list, around 33%—approximately three crore voters—had their names removed. Datar also alleged that about 1.22 crore names were removed based on purported discrepancies.

Datar highlighted that among those affected are individuals who had previously voted in elections but are now being asked to undergo the re-registration process. He raised objections regarding the use of Form-6, which is typically designated for new voters, arguing that it poses practical and legal challenges for those already registered.

The court was informed that the draft voter list was published on August 31, and the deadline for filing claims and objections was extended to October 26. The resolution of these claims is set to continue until November 10, with the final voter list expected to be published on November 16. The Supreme Court's next hearing on this matter is scheduled for November 5, which could impact the timeline for the revision process.

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court has previously upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the SIR process. The court recognized that amending the voter list falls within the constitutional and legal powers of the Election Commission, aimed at ensuring the reliability of voter lists and facilitating free and fair elections.