Amid the ongoing controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission, a PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations of statutory duties during the exercise.Filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate Chand Qureshi, the PIL demanded a judicial inquiry or a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged deletion of 13 crore voters from electoral rolls during the SIR.It urged the top court to declare that decisions, guidelines and software modifications undertaken by Kumar — allegedly without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners — were unconstitutional and void.”Declare all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Respondent No. 3 (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners (under Section 18 of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023) as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio,” the petitioner submitted.”Issue appropriate directions to the competent statutory authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against Respondents No. 3, 5, 6 and all other officers found guilty of deliberate breach of official duty,” the PIL submitted.It sought a declaration that all such decisions relating to the SIR were illegal, besides restoration of the original Form 6 used by individuals to apply for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll as a fresh voter.The PIL also sought action against senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg and Director General (Information Technology) of EC Seema Khanna.The petitioner submitted that official files revealed that over a 10-month period between November 2025 and August 2026, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded written dissents and objections on at least 14 separate occasions, including four times on a single day, against what he termed “unilateral, unauthorized, and illegal” decisions taken and executed in the name of the Commission.The alleged misconduct cited by the petitioner included unauthorised modification of Form 6, centralisation of electoral-roll databases, failure to restore eligible voters through the ECINet system and the filing of 16.1 lakh appeals in West Bengal against the inclusion of voters purportedly in the name of the EC.