The Bombay High Court has deferred the hearing on a writ petition over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Maharashtra by three weeks after it was told that the Supreme Court (SC) will hear a plea on the issue on October 8.

During the hearing on Monday, the High Court said it could not hold a parallel hearing to decide whether to pass an interim order to the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the Maharashtra voters list and the SIR process.

A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M Sethna was hearing a writ petition by two Mumbai residents, including Sagar Ramesh Gawai, youth president of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), that raised concerns over the “collection of documents during enumeration and [voter] exclusion based on uncollectible status.”

Story continues below.
Subscribe to see fewer ads.

The plea also sought direction to specify criteria for polling station rationalisation and ECINET specifications.

Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the EC, told the High Court bench that the Supreme Court was already dealing with legal challenges to the SIR and had requested the High Courts not to decide on these issues for the time being, as per its November 2025 order.

The next Supreme Court hearing in the matter has been scheduled for October 8.

Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, representing the petitioners, has, however, argued that the Supreme Court ruling was limited to the SIR and citizenship in Bihar and that the present plea was “totally different.”

Story continues below this ad

Ambedkar argued that until the final decision on the present plea, “Maharashtra’s electoral roll should not be disturbed,” as nearly 2 crore voters would be deleted from the list

“It is true that Maharashtra is not listed there [the SC ruling], so you can argue on a limited aspect, but as far as the broader issue is concerned, if the SC is hearing it, then there is no need for a parallel hearing. October 8 is not far…,” CJ Tripathi remarked orally.

Ambedkar has sought an interim direction that no voters be deleted in Maharashtra in the meantime.

“We are not hearing a PIL. This is a writ petition. A request has been made by the SC, and how can the HC proceed despite that? How can we stop it, and how can this (interim direction) be done?” the bench orally responded, and, on a request by the ECI lawyer, posted the hearing after three weeks.