The Bombay High Court has questioned the Election Commission of India’s handling of voter applications during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court said the poll body’s primary responsibility is to ensure that eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote.
The Goa bench made these observations while hearing a petition filed by six members of a family whose names were deleted from the electoral roll.
The bench, comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S Jamsandekar, questioned the rejection of applications submitted by the family. It also stressed that citizens have the right to question why the Election Commission ordered an SIR after nearly 24 years.
The court said the objective of electoral laws and the Election Commission must remain the inclusion of eligible voters.
Family Challenges Deletion of Names From Voter List
The petitioners, including Paresh Salgaonkar and his family members, had moved to a new house within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency.
According to their plea, the Booth Level Officer (BLO) instructed them to submit Form 8 to update their residential address in the electoral roll.
However, the authorities encountered errors while processing their applications. The system reportedly could not locate their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) records.
Consequently, the authorities rejected their Form 8 applications, prompting the family to approach the High Court.
The petition raised concerns over the deletion of voter names and the procedures authorities followed during the revision exercise.
‘People Can Question Why SIR After 24 Years’
During the hearing, Election Commission advocate Gaurish Agni questioned why the petitioners had not informed the authorities about their relocation earlier.
The bench responded by pointing out that citizens could also question why the Commission had ordered an SIR after 24 years.
The judges observed that regular updates to electoral rolls could have prevented such discrepancies.
They stressed that the responsibility to maintain accurate voter records should not rest entirely on citizens.
The court also clarified that the matter was not about assigning blame. Instead, it focused on ensuring that administrative procedures did not prevent eligible voters from exercising their rights.
Court Says ECI Must Prioritise Voter Inclusion
The High Court emphasised that the Representation of the People Act and the Election Commission share a fundamental objective: ensuring that citizens can cast their votes.
The bench said the Commission could adopt different measures to achieve this goal. However, administrative procedures must not override the primary objective.
The judges observed that authorities should consider keeping applications pending rather than rejecting them outright during the SIR process.
They said the Commission could finalise the electoral roll first and then examine pending Form 8 applications.
According to the court, such an approach would also help officials identify voters who had shifted residences.
The bench warned that outright rejection could leave an eligible voter without a place on the electoral roll.
Bombay HC Questions Automated Voter Deletions
The court also expressed concern over the role of automated systems in deleting voter names.
The judges questioned the legal authority that allows officials to remove names without providing affected voters an opportunity to be heard.
The bench sought to know which provision of the law empowers authorities to delete names without a hearing.
It also questioned whether officials had relied excessively on software while processing voter records.
The judges observed that technical systems cannot replace statutory safeguards.
They further raised concerns about how many eligible voters might face similar difficulties without approaching the court.
The observations highlighted the importance of transparency, accountability and due process during electoral roll revision.
Court Calls for Continuous Electoral Roll Updates
The High Court said regular updating of electoral rolls could help prevent many of the problems that arise during large-scale revision exercises.
The bench pointed out that authorities already have access to birth and death records.
It said officials should use such information to remove deceased voters from the rolls and ensure that eligible citizens receive voter registration when they turn 18.
The judges stressed that continuous maintenance would help electoral rolls reflect the actual voting population.
They also noted that voters who change residences provide useful information for updating constituency records.
The court’s observations highlighted the need for a system that balances accurate electoral records with the protection of voting rights.
Court Questions Rejection of Form 8 During SIR
The bench further examined whether authorities should reject applications submitted at an inconvenient stage of the SIR process.
The Election Commission’s counsel argued that petitioners could still approach the authorities through Form 6 or submit applications after the revision exercise.
However, the court questioned why officials could not keep such applications pending until the completion of the SIR.
The judges said that rejecting an application could leave a person excluded from the electoral roll during the transition.
They stressed that authorities should consider the consequences of procedural decisions on eligible voters.
The court also reiterated that the objective of electoral administration must take priority over technical irregularities.
Bombay High Court Fixes Next Hearing for October 5
The Bombay High Court had also observed during an earlier hearing that a draft electoral roll under the SIR cannot independently justify deleting names from the voter list.
The bench stressed that administrative software cannot override statutory provisions or deprive eligible citizens of their voting rights.
The court will hear the petition further on October 5.
The proceedings come amid wider legal and political discussions surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The latest observations underline the importance of protecting voter participation while maintaining accurate electoral records.
The court’s central concern remains whether the Election Commission’s procedures fulfil their primary purpose of ensuring that every eligible citizen can exercise the right to vote.