V Gopala Gowda calls for recall of Supreme Court verdict on voter list revision

Former Supreme Court judge V Gopala Gowda has called on the apex court to recall its May judgement upholding the Election Commission of India’s voter roll revision process, claiming the commission "played fraud" on the court by suppressing key facts.

Speaking at a protest organised by the CJP in Bengaluru, Gowda argued that the decision validating the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was unconstitutional and illegal. He alleged the Election Commission of India (ECI) misrepresented facts during the hearings by failing to disclose that two election commissioners had objected to aspects of the revision.

According to Gowda, the decisions were taken unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner in the name of the commission. He pointed to reports detailing internal dissent, which he claimed were effectively admitted in an ECI press release on 26 September. "Illegality and unconstitutionality are writ large on the judgement," Gowda said, calling for the Supreme Court to recall its verdict and summon the commission’s internal records to verify the decision-making process.

The row has exposed a deepening divide. While a group of 42 retired judges defended the SIR as a "lawful exercise" in an open letter, Gowda defended sitting Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan, who recently criticised mass voter disenfranchisement. Gowda dismissed criticism of Bhuyan's remarks, stating there was no judicial impropriety in a sitting judge speaking on a constitutional issue.

Supreme Court questions 'forgiving nature' in mass murder case

In a separate development, the Supreme Court expressed concern over its own leniency in commuting death sentences, suggesting that a tendency to show mercy has contributed to a rise in crime.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu made the remarks while hearing a remission plea from Sonia and her husband Sanjeev Kumar. The couple were convicted of the 2001 mass murder of eight members of Sonia’s family—including her father, former Haryana legislator Relu Ram Punia, and a 45-day-old infant—over a property dispute.

Though sentenced to death in 2004, the top court commuted their sentences to life imprisonment in 2014 due to delays in resolving their mercy petitions. A high court order in late 2025 directed the state to consider their premature release under a 2002 policy.

"It is because of the Supreme Court’s forgiving nature India is facing this problem," Justice Datta remarked. "We just forgive, forgive, forgive. One must draw a line somewhere." The bench has reserved its order.

Breakups and suicide abetment charges

Separately, the Supreme Court ruled that a relationship breakdown ending in suicide cannot automatically be treated as abetment.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran quashed a criminal case against a man and five of his family members who were prosecuted after the man's live-in partner took her own life following their breakup.

The court noted that people react differently to emotional distress and that refusing to marry someone does not equal an intent to drive them to suicide. "At worst... there was a refusal of marriage, which led to the woman committing suicide," the bench said, adding that such a refusal does not constitute abetment.