Bombay High Court refuses to stay deletion of names from Maharashtra electoral rolls under SIR

The Bombay High Court has categorically refused to grant an urgent stay on the deletion of voters' names from the electoral rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Maharashtra. The court said it would not pass any interim order in the matter. The bench also said it would strictly observe judicial propriety.

The hearing was held before a bench of Chief Justice Maheshchandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna. The bench drew attention to a special order the Supreme Court had issued as early as November 2025, which barred high courts from hearing the legal validity of the SIR process or petitions related to it.

Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni appeared for the Election Commission. He told the court that several high courts across the country had already declined to hear petitions challenging the SIR process. He said some courts had advised petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for greater clarity.

The Chief Justice said that, with the Supreme Court's prohibitory order already in place, there was no point in conducting parallel litigation in the Bombay High Court. "There are already restraint orders of the Supreme Court in this matter... so no purpose will be served by pursuing a parallel petition. First let the Supreme Court complete the hearing on this subject," he said.

After the court's stand became clear, the petitioners made a second plea. They asked that the Election Commission be directed to ensure that not a single voter's name was deleted from the electoral rolls in Maharashtra, at least until the final hearing in the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice rejected this request as well. "No, no, no. We will not pass any such order. We will strictly observe judicial propriety," he said. The court thus did not accept the petitioners' second demand either.

The High Court was informed that the entire matter will come up for hearing before the Supreme Court on October 8. After recording this, the High Court adjourned the next hearing in the case by three weeks. All eyes are now on the Supreme Court hearing.