Delhi Shuts Metro Stations Ahead of Congress March Over Voter Rolls

Delhi authorities closed six metro stations on Oct. 12, 2026 for "security reasons" ahead of a planned opposition march to the Supreme Court.

Delhi police said traffic restrictions and diversions would be imposed at 20 locations across the capital on Oct. 12, 2026, according to The Guardian.

The march was called by India's Congress party. The party said it would walk to the Supreme Court to submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice demanding an end to "vote theft" and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Chief Justice Surya Kant declined the meeting request from Rahul Gandhi and the Congress delegation. He said they should approach the court legally, since the voter-list issue was already being heard.

The dispute centers on a voter-list verification exercise that deleted more than 130 million names. That total includes 30 million untraceable voters, 28 million deceased persons and 63 million relocated persons, according to The Guardian.

The Election Commission of India denied favouring any party. It said voters wrongly deleted from the lists could re-enrol. The march went ahead.

The broader context here is a clash of three separate tracks. One is administrative, the building and correcting of electoral rolls, the official lists of eligible voters, affecting more than 130 million entries. The second is judicial, with the voter-list question already before the Supreme Court and governed by formal rules for filings and arguments. The third is mobilizational, a public march to the court building with a memorandum and a call for leadership change at the Election Commission.

In my view, the Chief Justice's answer draws a line between those tracks. A memorandum handed over in person is like a public letter. It can signal urgency. A petition filed under court rules is different. It decides who can bring a claim, what the court can accept and what order it can issue. Only the second can produce a binding order.

Looking at what this means for election administration, the near-term test is practical. The Commission points to re-enrolment as the fix for mistaken deletions. Whether that fix is trusted will depend on access, timelines, who must show proof and clear information in affected areas. The opposition calls the deletions "vote theft," which attributes intent. The Commission denies partisan favour. The court case is the forum where evidence for either claim would have to be presented and tested.