Former Supreme Court judge Justice V. Gopala Gowda has called for the recall of the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upholding the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He argues ECI misrepresented facts before the court — amounting to fraud — which vitiates the judgment. The recall demand invokes the principle that a judgment obtained by suppression or misrepresentation of material facts has no legal sanctity and cannot stand.

This controversy turns on a narrow but powerful doctrine in constitutional law: a judgment obtained by fraud on the court can be recalled or set aside even after it becomes final. The Supreme Court recognised this principle in Roshan Lal v. Indian Oil Corporation (2002) and reiterated it in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007), holding that 'fraud unravels everything' — including a judicial verdict. When a party, especially a constitutional authority like ECI, places incorrect or suppressed facts before a court and secures a favourable ruling, the court retains inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 or its review/curative jurisdiction to undo the judgment.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is conducted under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Article 324 vests superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission. Critics argued the SIR process was rushed and targeted particular communities, while ECI maintained it was a routine exercise to cleanse rolls.

Constitutionally, this episode tests Art. 19(1)(a) (right to vote as a facet), Art. 14 (equal treatment of voters), and Art. 324 (ECI's superintendence). Courts have held the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right per se (People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2013), yet its exercise must comply with constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness. A recall motion thus sits at the intersection of electoral law, constitutional fraud doctrine, and the court's inherent corrective power.