Back
Ex-SC Judge Gopala Gowda Demands Recall of SIR Judgment, Alleges Fraud on
In a startling development that has sent ripples through the legal community, former judge Justice V Gopala Gowda has demanded the immediate recall of the apex court’s judgment upholding the of India’s () Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Speaking out in a candid interview, Justice Gowda accused the poll panel of playing a “” by deliberately misrepresenting material facts and concealing critical decision-making records during the judicial proceedings. His call for a review of the judgment has reignited a fierce debate over the integrity of electoral roll revisions and the transparency of the ’s internal functioning.
Justice Gowda, who served on the bench, did not mince words. He asserted that the top court must invoke its to reopen the case, summon all internal records from the , and verify whether the contentious SIR decision had the approval of the full Commission. “Illegality and unconstitutionality are writ large on the [SIR] judgment,” he stated, emphasising that the very foundation of any judicial verdict. The former judge’s remarks come amid growing public concern over reports that key decisions regarding the revision process were taken unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner, over the objections of two Election Commissioners—a fact allegedly suppressed before the .
Background: The Special Intensive Revision Controversy
The SIR of electoral rolls, initiated by the , was challenged in the on grounds that it disproportionately targeted certain communities and led to . In , the apex court upheld the ’s decision, providing a judicial seal of approval to the exercise. However, recent investigative reports have cast a shadow over the integrity of that verdict. According to Justice Gowda, these reports revealed that several aspects of the SIR were carried out without the concurrence of the full Commission. “The deliberate suppression of facts would amount to playing ,” he argued, noting that the ’s own press release in effectively admitted the substance of these media disclosures.
The former judge further pointed to a troubling disconnect between the ’s claims and the court’s understanding. While the poll panel attempted to project that the had approved modifications to Form 6—a key document for voter registration—the Chief Justice of India recently denied that any such approval was granted. This discrepancy, Justice Gowda maintained, warrants a fresh judicial examination of the SIR judgment.
Allegations of Concealment and Unilateral Action
Justice Gowda’s allegations strike at the heart of the ’s decision-making process. He argued that the Commission’s failure to place before the the internal records of dissent and unilateral action constituted a direct fraud on the judiciary. “The Court should examine the records concerning the decision-making process within the to determine whether the SIR decision had the approval of the Full Commission,” he said. In his view, the press release issued by the after the judgment effectively corroborated media reports that the revision was pushed through despite opposition from two Election Commissioners.
The former judge also took aim at the broader political context, accusing the Chief Election Commissioner of acting with the support of the government. “Democracy is being murdered and butchered at the hands of the CEC with the support of those at the helm of the affairs of the ,” he declared during a public demonstration at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park. Such strong language underscores the intensity of the controversy, which legal experts say could have far-reaching implications for the sanctity of electoral processes and the independence of the .
Defense of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
In addition to his critique of the SIR judgment, Justice Gowda vigorously defended sitting judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan against criticism from former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. Justice Bhuyan had earlier made public remarks concerning the of voters, which some viewed as a breach of judicial propriety. Justice Gowda dismissed such criticism, questioning “What is the impropriety in speaking about to law students?” He argued that a judge is entitled to discuss constitutional issues with citizens, especially when are at stake.
Justice Gowda also drew a pointed parallel, recalling that former CJI Gavai himself, while serving as a judge of the , had commented on the even while the matter was in the . “What right does he have to criticise Justice Bhuyan?” Justice Gowda asked, highlighting what he saw as a double standard. The exchange has added a layer of intra-judicial tension to the already heated debate over the SIR and the ’s conduct.
Legal Implications and the Way Forward
Justice Gowda’s demand for a recall of the SIR judgment raises significant questions about the finality of decisions when allegations of fraud are involved. Under well-established legal principles, a and can be set aside even after the normal period of review. The former judge’s call for a exercise of the court’s power is rooted in this doctrine. Legal experts note that if the court accepts the argument that the misrepresented facts, it would not only affect the SIR but also compel a re-examination of the ’s internal governance and transparency.
Moreover, the controversy has broader implications for electoral integrity in India. The SIR process, intended to clean up electoral rolls, has been accused of disenfranchising legitimate voters, particularly from minority communities. The allegation that the acted unilaterally undermines public confidence in the electoral machinery. The ’s response—whether it revisits the judgment or not—will likely set a precedent for how far the judiciary will go to police the conduct of constitutional bodies.
Justice Gowda concluded his remarks at the Freedom Park gathering with a stark warning: “People will teach them a lesson.” While the immediate fate of the SIR judgment rests with the , the debate it has sparked is far from over. For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between judicial deference to expert bodies and the court’s duty to ensure that its own process is not subverted by fraud or suppression of facts.
As the legal community watches closely, the onus is now on the apex court to decide whether the allegations merit a recall. Justice Gowda’s intervention, coming from a former judge of the same court, adds significant weight to the demand. Whether the court will act or wait for a formal petition remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the integrity of the electoral roll revision and the credibility of the are now squarely on trial.
