Former Supreme Court Justice V. Gopala Gowda has called on the bench to **recall the May 2026 Supreme Court judgment** that validated the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) order establishing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He alleges the Court was misled by the ECI, arguing that key facts were suppressed and procedural proprieties ignored.
—
## Allegations of Misrepresentation
Justice Gowda insists that the Supreme Court delivered its decision under a **false premise**—that the decision to conduct SIR was adopted by the full Election Commission, with the agreement of all its commissioners. According to him, internal objections raised by two Election Commissioners were entirely left out of the records submitted to the Supreme Court. The former justice claims this omission amounts to a **fraud on the Court**, which undermines the very foundation of the judgment.
### Suppression of Internal Objections
A recent Indian Express report revealed that two Election Commissioners had **objected** to several decisions related to the SIR. Moreover, substantial changes—like the new Form 6—were introduced without full Commission approval and yet presented as having the Supreme Court’s endorsement. These facts, Justice Gowda asserts, were not disclosed to the Court.
### Press Release Backtracking
Justice Gowda highlights a press release by the ECI issued on September 26. In it, the Commission “confirmed” aspects of the Indian Express story. The release also propagated the claim that the Supreme Court had endorsed the modified Form 6, which the Chief Justice of India subsequently refuted. Gowda argues these inconsistencies call for a *relook* at the SIR decision.
—
## Constitutional Concerns & Recall Demand
Justice Gowda described the May 2026 ruling as **illegally unconstitutional**. He argues that because critical facts were withheld, the judgment can no longer stand. He urges the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu proceedings to:
– **Recall** the SIR judgment.
– **Obtain all documents** evidencing the decision-making process inside the Election Commission.
– Determine if a **full majority decision** approved the SIR and Form 6 modifications.
—
## Justice Bhuyan’s Remarks on Voter Deletions
The former justice also defended Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who faced criticism—mostly from former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai—for expressing concerns over what he called *mass disenfranchisement of voters*. Gowda asserted that Justice Bhuyan acted within his rights by speaking on constitutional issues.
Gowda questioned Gavai’s credibility, pointing out that while serving as a judge of the Bombay High Court, Gavai had publicly commented on the Judge Loya case even as it was pending before the Supreme Court. Gowda said that Gavai has remained silent regarding the reported internal objections within the ECI around SIR-related decisions.
—
## Public Demonstration and Broader Critique
On the same day the interview was conducted, Justice Gowda participated in a protest held by the Campaign for Judicial Performance (CJP) at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park. He went further, calling the SIR scheme “unconstitutional, illegal and undemocratic,” and claimed that Indian democracy is under assault with the CEC seemingly aligned with broader government directions.
—
## What This Means for Electoral Roll Revisions and Public Trust
The SIR process was meant to cleanse voter lists—removing outdated or false entries—to preserve electoral integrity. But Gowda is challenging both the legality and the transparency of how it was adopted.
– **Legitimacy**: If these allegations hold, then the judicial endorsement of SIR rests on an incomplete record and possibly misrepresented facts.
– **Legal Precedent**: Their confirmation without addressing dissent within the ECI might set a problematic benchmark.
– **Public Confidence**: Democracy hinges on trust, and alleged misconduct at this level could erode faith in electoral institutions.
—
Justice Gowda’s demand to recall the SIR judgment underlines the tension between procedural accountability in public institutions and finality of Supreme Court rulings. His challenge hinges on the disclosure—including internal objections and records—that were reportedly absent from the original case before the Court. Whether the Supreme Court responds with suo motu proceedings will test the mechanisms in place for safeguarding judicial process and electoral fairness.
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
