Gopala Gowda: Demands Supreme Court SIR Judgment Recall

• Former Supreme Court Justice V. Gopala Gowda has called for the recall of the May 27 Supreme Court judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR), labeling it "illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic."
• Justice Gowda accused the Chief Election Commissioner and government officials of 'butchering' independent India's democracy and demanded the Supreme Court review the EC's records for decision-making transparency.
• He defended sitting Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's public remarks against mass disenfranchisement, while former CJI B.R. Gavai and other retired judges criticized Bhuyan for commenting on a sub judice matter.
• These developments occur amidst a defense of the SIR by 42 retired judges and strong objections from former Solicitor General Harish Salve against political attacks on constitutional institutions like the Election Commission.
• The controversy is further fueled by an Opposition protest demanding the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged vote theft, highlighting deep political divisions over electoral processes.

A former Supreme Court justice, V. Gopala Gowda, has issued a forceful condemnation of the apex court's May 27 decision, which affirmed the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A former Supreme Court justice, V. Gopala Gowda, has issued a forceful condemnation of the apex court's May 27 decision, which affirmed the constitutional validity of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Justice Gowda, who previously served on the Supreme Court and was an ex-CPI(M) member, asserts that the ruling is "illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic" and must be recalled. His remarks underscore a significant legal and political challenge to the recent judicial pronouncement concerning electoral processes.

Justice Gowda did not mince words in his criticism, stating that the "78 years of independent India has been butchered and murdered at the hands of the CEC" with the backing of government officials, whose names he declined to disclose. He called upon the Supreme Court to demand all relevant records from the Election Commission to ascertain whether the decision regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was made by the full Commission and received the concurrence and approval of a majority of Election Commissioners.

This call for the Gopala Gowda Supreme Court SIR judgment recall comes from a figure known for his judicial independence. In 2016, Justice Gowda notably ruled in favor of farmers in the Singur land acquisition case, ordering the West Bengal government to return approximately 1,000 acres of land, originally acquired for the Tata Nano plant, to its rightful owners. His name was also considered by the Opposition as a joint candidate for the vice-presidential election in 2017.

The former justice's comments also extend to the ongoing debate surrounding judicial propriety, particularly concerning public statements by sitting judges on matters that are sub judice. Justice Gowda defended recent remarks made by sitting Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, asserting that there was no impropriety in an apex court judge speaking out against the mass disenfranchisement of voters, a topic related to the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision.

However, Justice Bhuyan's public commentary on the SIR has drawn criticism from other prominent legal figures. Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with two retired judges from the Delhi High Court, expressed concerns, emphasizing that the issue is currently pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Former CJI Gavai specifically stated that "judicial propriety would not permit him to make any comment on the matter which is sub judice before the court," highlighting the importance of restraint in such circumstances. This divergence of opinion on Justice Gowda electoral rolls remarks and judicial propriety Ujjal Bhuyan comments underscores a significant internal legal discussion.

The criticism from figures like B.R. Gavai sub judice criticism points to a foundational principle of judicial conduct, where judges are expected to avoid public commentary on cases or issues that are still before the courts to maintain impartiality and avoid prejudicing proceedings.

Justice Gowda's strong statements coincide with a broader spectrum of reactions to the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision and the Supreme Court's judgment. A collective of 42 retired judges recently issued an open letter to the "people of India," defending the SIR as a "lawful exercise." They stated their compulsion to speak out, asserting that "silence is no longer a neutral choice" and characterizing the opposition's attacks on the Election Commission as a "campaign without evidence."

Adding to this, former Solicitor General of India and Senior Advocate Harish Salve has also voiced strong objections to what he perceives as political attacks on the Election Commission of India. Salve remarked that "politics is getting a little beyond what its legitimate boundaries are," arguing that while political parties and opponents are fair targets, constitutional institutions should not be subjected to such assaults. He further contended that once the ECI clarified the unanimity of its decisions on the SIR, political opponents had no legitimate reason to continue their protests.

These varied legal and political responses follow a protest march by members of the Opposition's INDIA Bloc from Parliament House to the Election Commission in New Delhi. The protest was staged over allegations of vote theft and included a demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, illustrating the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the electoral process and its oversight.

Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor the ongoing legal and political debate surrounding the Supreme Court's SIR judgment, as calls for its recall and questions about its constitutional validity could lead to further litigation or changes in electoral processes. It also underscores the importance of judicial propriety in public commentary on sub judice matters.

Source: Original reporting on recent legal and political commentary.