# Top Court Must Recall Verdict Backing Special Intensive Revision, Urges V. Gopala Gowda

> Former Supreme Court judge V. Gopala Gowda has urged the bench to revoke its ruling upholding the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise.

**Type:** article · **Category:** India · **Published:** 2026-10-09 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/national/vishesha-gahana-punarikshana-para-shirsha-adalata-apane-adesha-ki-samiksha-kare-v-gopala-gowda-ne-uthaya-savala-45039 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Supreme Court, V Gopala Gowda, Election Commission, SIR, Voter List, Ujjal Bhuyan, Gyanesh Kumar, Politics

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.

## What this means for you
The judicial and political disputes over the Special Intensive Revision have a direct bearing on citizen voting rights and electoral transparency.

- **Across India:** Judicial scrutiny over the revision process directly influences how names are added or struck off electoral rolls nationwide. Citizens must proactively monitor and verify their enrollment status ahead of forthcoming polls.
- **In Bengaluru:** Local agitations over voter deletions mean residents should urgently verify their voter cards against published draft lists. Those whose entries were removed will need to follow administrative grievance channels to file formal claims.
- **Voter Vigilance:** Registered voters across all constituencies need to actively check official portals to confirm their eligibility. Discovering an omission early allows sufficient time to submit corrective applications before statutory deadlines.
- **Institutional Accountability:** Scrutiny over internal documentation places higher procedural responsibility on the Election Commission. This could lead to stricter safeguards and greater transparency before any widespread voter deletions occur.

## Why this happened
The dispute stems from allegations of widespread voter deletions under the Special Intensive Revision alongside objections to an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

- **Challenge to Apex Ruling:** On 27 May, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's revision process. Critics and former judge V. Gopala Gowda argue that this verdict enables systemic disenfranchisement and must be recalled.
- **Alleged Procedural Irregularities:** Questions have been raised regarding whether the commission's decision received the formal approval of both election commissioners. This prompted the demand for judicial requisition of all internal Commission files.
- **Clashing Judicial and Political Stances:** While a group of 42 retired judges defended the exercise as legal, opposition parties demanded the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner. Meanwhile, sitting judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's warnings about disenfranchising millions further intensified the controversy.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What demand has former judge V. Gopala Gowda made to the Supreme Court?
He urged the top court to recall its 27 May decision upholding the Special Intensive Revision and summon all original documents from the Election Commission.

### 2. What concerns were raised by the former judge regarding the SIR exercise?
He asserted that the revision is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic, leading to widespread voter disenfranchisement.

### 3. What position did the group of 42 retired judges take?
The group of 42 retired judges defended the Special Intensive Revision, describing it as a valid and regular legal process.

### 4. What observation was made by sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan?
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that any process depriving millions of citizens of their voting rights violates constitutional principles.

### 5. What actions are opposition parties demanding regarding the Election Commission?
Opposition parties led by Congress are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and have filed petitions before the court.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._