Recall the SIR Verdict: Justice Gopala Gowda Accuses ECI of Misleading the Supreme Court
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesCourts decide cases on the record placed before them. So what happens if that record is incomplete? That is the question behind former Supreme Court judge Justice V. Gopala Gowda's demand that the Court recall its own judgment on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Speaking at a protest in Bengaluru's Freedom Park and later to LiveLaw, Justice Gowda called the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment "illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic." That judgment upheld the Election Commission of India's power to conduct the SIR. He wants the Court to act suo motu, call for the Commission's records, and examine how the decision was actually taken. His argument rests on an alleged suppression of facts. He cites an Indian Express investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to SIR-related decisions on 14 occasions over ten months. According to that report, those objections were overruled, and decisions were taken in the Commission's name by the Chief Election Commissioner. Justice Gowda says this was never brought to the Supreme Court's notice. In his view, deliberate suppression amounts to fraud on the Court, and "fraud vitiates the basis of the judgment." This matters because the Election Commission is a multi-member body. Under Article 324 and the 2023 statute governing its business, decisions are meant to be collective, and differences are resolved by majority. If the Court was told the SIR had the Commission's collective backing when it did not, the foundation of its reasoning could be affected. Whether that happened is an allegation, not an established finding. Justice Gowda also points to the modified Form 6. After the Commission's 26 September press release suggested the Supreme Court had cleared the revised form, Chief Justice Surya Kant said on 5 October that no modified Form 6 had been approved by the Court. For Justice Gowda, that mismatch reinforces the need for a fresh look. The Legal Hurdle Recalling a final judgment is rare. Review petitions under Article 137 are narrow, and curative petitions, recognised in Rupa Ashok Hurra , are a last resort. But Indian courts have long held, as in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , that fraud unravels everything it touches. The real test is evidence: the Court would have to see the records before deciding whether anything material was concealed. Why It Matters The controversy goes beyond one verdict. Courts depend on candour from constitutional authorities, and the public depends on courts to correct themselves when the record proves incomplete. Whatever the outcome, a transparent examination of the Commission's decision-making would strengthen trust in both institutions. The Election Commission's response should be read alongside these allegations, and the Supreme Court has not yet acted on the plea for suo motu recall.