Gowda made the demand on Thursday amid mounting opposition criticism of the electoral roll revision exercise and fresh judicial scrutiny of decisions taken by the Election Commission. He urged the court to reconsider its May 27 judgment and examine whether the Commission had followed the legally required decision-making procedures.
The former judge questioned whether the SIR exercise had received approval from a majority of the three-member Election Commission. He said the Supreme Court should summon the Commission’s records to establish whether the decision had been taken collectively and with the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
His intervention followed allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had taken certain decisions without securing the agreement of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The allegations have become a significant issue in the continuing litigation over electoral administration.
Gowda alleged that the Election Commission had misrepresented material facts before the Supreme Court. He argued that the judgment should be recalled by the court on its own initiative, rather than waiting for another legal challenge.
The allegations have not been judicially established. No recall proceedings arising from Gowda’s demand had been confirmed, and the Election Commission had not publicly responded directly to his accusations.
The Supreme Court’s May 27 judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, upheld the constitutional validity of the SIR undertaken in Bihar. The bench rejected petitions questioning the Commission’s authority to conduct the exercise.
The court held that the revision was supported by Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It found that the exercise pursued a legitimate electoral objective and complied with the applicable statutory framework.
The judgment also recognised the Commission’s authority to conduct limited inquiries into citizenship when determining eligibility for inclusion in electoral rolls. The ruling remains legally operative unless reconsidered or overturned through judicial proceedings.
Gowda’s objections emerged as the Supreme Court examined separate allegations concerning the Commission’s functioning. During proceedings this week, the court indicated that decisions found to violate statutory requirements could be annulled.
The bench sought explanations concerning allegations that certain decisions had been made without the necessary collective approval. The issue centres on whether the Commission acted as a statutory body rather than through unilateral directions from its chairman.
Another dispute concerns modifications to Form 6, used by citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified on Monday that the Supreme Court had not approved modifications to the prescribed registration form.
The clarification followed objections to an additional declaration requiring applicants to provide information concerning their inclusion, or that of their ancestors, in earlier electoral rolls.
Critics argued that imposing requirements beyond the prescribed statutory framework could create additional obstacles for eligible voters. The Election Commission maintained that the declaration related to the special revision process and subsequently clarified the use of statutory forms outside that exercise.
Gowda cited the controversy while questioning the Commission’s representations about judicial approval. His criticism reflected concerns about whether administrative instructions had exceeded the authority provided under electoral legislation.
His remarks coincided with a demonstration at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park on Thursday, where protesters challenged the SIR exercise and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The controversy has also divided retired members of the judiciary. A group of 42 former judges defended the Election Commission on Thursday and criticised opposition attacks on the institution, arguing that politically motivated allegations could undermine confidence in electoral administration.
Opposition parties have questioned voter exclusions, documentation requirements and the transparency of the revision process. They contend that eligible citizens risk losing their electoral registration without adequate procedural safeguards.
The Election Commission has maintained that electoral roll verification is necessary to ensure accurate voter lists and prevent ineligible entries. Its position received judicial support through the May judgment, although subsequent administrative decisions remain subject to legal scrutiny.
The Bihar revision began under a Commission order issued on June 24, 2025. The final electoral roll, published in September that year, contained approximately 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the exercise commenced.
During the original proceedings, the Supreme Court directed publication of excluded voters’ names with reasons and permitted Aadhaar as an additional identity document, while clarifying that it did not establish citizenship.
