Rahul Gandhi’s plea not listed for hearing on October 13, faces routine administrative hurdles

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and others during the ‘March for Democracy’ of INDIA Bloc leaders towards the Supreme Court to file a petition against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and ‘vote chori’ at Barakhamba Road in New Delhi. File | Photo credit: PTI

A petition filed by opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi in the Supreme Court for full disclosure of records and decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) for a special intensive review and independent investigation into allegations of unilateral exercise of power by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar that led to voter deletion and manipulation is not listed3 for hearing on October 1.

The application was filed on Monday (October 12, 2026) evening, even as Mr. Gandhi led a march to the Supreme Court.

He and other leaders across the opposition political spectrum came to the Supreme Court office to mark their presence as petitioners in the case.

The petition points out that it was filed on the basis of the CJI’s written communication dated October 11 in response to representations made on October 10 on behalf of Mr. Gandhi, who is the Leader of the Opposition, and the co-petitioner, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, for permission to meet the chief justice.

CEC LIVE Protests Update October 13, 2026

In his response to the Congress officials’ representation, the CJI informed the two opposition leaders that “incidentally some matters highlighting similar issues are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday (October 13, 2026)”. These pending petitions are listed before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Kant himself.

The CJI advised the opposition leaders that they too can file the petition on October 12 between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm or use the e-filing facility provided by the apex court to litigants.

“You have my assurance that every such petition will be heard at the earliest possible opportunity in accordance with law,” Chief Justice Kant wrote to the opposition leaders in his October 11 reply.

But the motion is still on the Supreme Court’s docket due to common administrative glitches.

Under Supreme Court rules, if a petition or appeal has defects or is returned by the registry, the petitioner or attorney is usually given a period of time, such as 28 days or standard registry periods depending on the particular chapter of the filing, to remove the defects.

If the defects are not removed within the original deadline and the case remains in arrears for up to 90 days, the petitioners can file a request for “defect leniency and resubmission”. The matter is normally brought before a Chambers Judge to make orders. A panel judge often grants a final extension of time, usually four to six weeks, to handle objections.

If defects are still not cured despite opportunities, matters are sometimes listed for dismissal or dismissed for failure to prosecute/remediate defects. Petitioners routinely file for restoration, and the Supreme Court docket generally takes a lenient approach to restoration where sufficient cause or compliance is shown.

Once the petition is cured, it is numbered and the Chief Justice of India, as master of the list on the administrative side, assigns it to the appropriate committee for preliminary hearing.

Mr. Gandhi’s petition is said to contain more than 10 administrative defects, including a deficit in court fees and missing vakalatnamas for some of the petitioners. His legal team said these defects “are being considered in accordance with Supreme Court rules and will be cured in due course”. They said the registry found no other flaws in the substantive and constitutional arguments presented in the motion.

Meanwhile, a bench headed by the Chief Justice is hearing another petition filed by Mr. Gandhi against the Allahabad High Court’s order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate allegations of disproportionate assets by private complainant S. Vignesh Shishir.

The Congress leader told the court that Mr. Shishir’s allegations amounted to a “witch hunt” and the Supreme Court passed the order without giving him a hearing. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the disproportionate assets proceedings, verbally noting that courts must follow the principles of natural justice.

Published – 13 Oct 2026 09:32 IST