Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday deferred by three weeks the hearing of a fresh petition that questions the manner in which the SIR process is undertaken in Maharashtra after EC said the SC is hearing a similar issue on Oct 8 and the top court by an earlier interim order restrained HCs from hearing such pleas.
When advocate Prakash Ambedkar for the petitioners however asked HC to at least pass urgent interim orders to restrain deletion of existing voters pending further hearing before HC, Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said it could pass no such orders, mid-SIR, since it was abiding by the apex court order.
Kumbhakoni for EC raised a preliminary objection, and citing a Nov 2025 interim order of SC in the original SIR matter, said the top court had asked high courts not to consider similar petitions since the issue was pending before it.
Kumbhakoni said the interim order continues to operate against the present petition.
The petitioners clarified they do not want to stop SIR or disturb the programme as the power of EC under Article 324 of the Constitution (empowering EC to hold and manage free and fair polls) read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is not disputed. The petition seeks enforcement of safeguards recognised in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India , 2026 such as recorded reasons, notice, individual enquiry, hearing, a reasoned ERO (Electoral Registration officer) order, effective appeal and restraint where citizenship remains in doubt. The petitioner Gawai, citing his own experience, said while “Clause 2(d) of ECI’s Maharashtra instruction does not permit collection of documents during enumeration. The petition seeks to argue that when there is a doubt, the issue must be sent to officers under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for a decision. The petition seeks disclosure of the Section 21(3) record; a decision on the pending representation; uniform public instructions; equal online and physical filing; lawful citizenship reference; effective appeals; and review of rationalisation after claims, without delaying SIR.
The petition raised questions over implementation of SIR in the state. Yet, while receiving the Enumeration Form the concerned BLO asked him to submit supporting documents with it” and thus he filed the petition to question the process.