Former Supreme Court judge Justice V Gopala Gowda has said that the Supreme Court ought to reconsider and recall its judgment concerning the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls if it is established that the poll panel had withheld or misrepresented material facts before the Court.
Justice Gowda has questioned the circumstances in which the decision to undertake the SIR exercise was taken, particularly in light of subsequent developments concerning the internal functioning of the Election Commission. He suggested that the Supreme Court should examine the original records relating to the decision-making process to ascertain whether the exercise had the institutional approval required under the governing legal framework.
According to the former judge, any suppression or misrepresentation of material facts before a constitutional court would have consequences going to the very root of the adjudicatory process. If a judgment is secured on the basis of an incorrect or incomplete factual premise, he said, the Court possesses the jurisdiction to revisit the decision.
Justice Gowda has particularly questioned whether the decision to commence the SIR was taken with the concurrence of all members of the Election Commission or whether it was initiated by the Chief Election Commissioner independently. He referred to reports suggesting that differences had subsequently emerged within the Commission over aspects of the exercise.
The former judge maintained that such developments assume significance if the Supreme Court was not apprised of them while adjudicating the challenge to the SIR process. In such circumstances, he argued, the Court would be justified in examining whether the factual foundation on which its judgment proceeded remained intact.
Justice Gowda also referred to the controversy surrounding changes to Form 6, the prescribed form through which an individual seeks inclusion of his or her name in the electoral rolls. He questioned the circumstances in which the changes were introduced and whether the Election Commission had correctly represented the Supreme Court’s position regarding the same.
The issue has acquired further significance following the Supreme Court’s observation that it had not granted judicial approval to the modifications made to Form 6. The Court has sought an explanation from the Election Commission regarding the circumstances in which the changes were effected.
Justice Gowda has argued that the developments surrounding the SIR exercise cannot be viewed merely as administrative irregularities. According to him, where the exercise has the potential to determine whether eligible citizens remain on the electoral rolls, the constitutional implications of the process warrant rigorous judicial scrutiny.
He also defended Justice Ujjal Bhuyan against criticism over observations made by the latter regarding the deletion of names from electoral rolls. Justice Gowda rejected the suggestion that a judge’s discussion of constitutional concerns in an academic or public forum, by itself, amounts to judicial impropriety.
The former judge emphasised that questions concerning the sanctity of the electoral process, constitutional rights and the possibility of disenfranchisement are matters of public and constitutional importance. He questioned whether judges should be precluded from discussing such issues merely because they subsequently arise for judicial consideration.
At the core of Justice Gowda’s argument is the established principle that fraud vitiates judicial proceedings. A judgment obtained by practising fraud upon a court, he suggested, cannot claim immunity merely because it has been rendered by a constitutional court.
He has, therefore, urged the Supreme Court to revisit its SIR ruling if the allegations concerning the Election Commission’s disclosures are found to have substance. In his view, the issue is not confined to the correctness of the electoral-roll revision exercise but extends to the integrity of the process through which constitutional adjudication itself is undertaken.
The observations come amid continuing judicial scrutiny of the SIR exercise and questions concerning the Election Commission’s decision-making process. The controversy has assumed particular importance because electoral-roll revision directly implicates the right of eligible citizens to participate in the democratic process.
Justice Gowda’s intervention thus raises a broader constitutional question: whether a judicial determination can continue to operate where the factual premises placed before the Court are subsequently demonstrated to have been materially inaccurate or incomplete.
The post SIR judgment must be recalled if ECI misled Supreme Court on material facts: Justice Gopala Gowda appeared first on India Legal.