The ongoing political and legal confrontation surrounding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has intensified with a public intervention from a former member of the higher judiciary. V. Gopala Gowda, a former Supreme Court judge, has called upon the top court to recall its earlier judgment that validated the exercise, contending that the procedure is unconstitutional, unlawful, and contrary to democratic norms. Several petitions are already pending before the court seeking the complete annulment of the revision.
Demand for Complete Documentation and Procedural Scrutiny
Speaking on Thursday, 8 October 2026, V. Gopala Gowda stated that the apex judicial body must requisition all internal records and files from the Election Commission. He noted that summoning these official documents is necessary to determine whether the decision to implement the SIR was taken with the explicit concurrence and formal clearance of both election commissioners. In his assessment, reviewing the underlying paperwork is essential to establish whether mandatory administrative procedures were adhered to.
Rival Judicial Stances and Heightened Political Discontent
This critical assessment arrived on the very same day that a collective of 42 retired judges publicly came out in defence of the SIR, describing the revision exercise as a valid legal procedure. Simultaneously, political tensions remain elevated across the country. Opposition parties, spearheaded by Congress, have mounted aggressive agitations and demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while approaching the apex court through fresh legal challenges.
Addressing a demonstration organised in Bengaluru by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) against the deletion of voter names during the electoral roll revision, the former judge targeted the court's earlier order. He remarked, “The 27 May decision of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of SIR is unlawful and undemocratic, and should be revoked immediately.”
Endorsement of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's Judicial Observations
The controversy also draws upon remarks made recently by sitting Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan. On Sunday, Justice Bhuyan observed that any administrative exercise leading to the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens stands directly opposed to constitutional principles.
V. Gopala Gowda firmly backed the sitting judge's viewpoint, maintaining that raising an alarm against widespread voter exclusion does not breach judicial propriety in any manner. Instead, he argued that speaking out against systemic disenfranchisement is fully consistent with safeguarding constitutional guarantees and democratic electoral integrity.
