The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench has issued a ruling requiring the Election Commission to reinstate the names of six voters from Goa, who were removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. This decision came after a petition was filed by Paresh Vasant Salgaonkar and five family members, all residents of the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency in North Goa.

The court directed that their names be included in the electoral roll within ten days, following verification of their new residential addresses. The bench, which consisted of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar, dismissed a request from the Election Commission to stay the order so that it could appeal to the Supreme Court. The court clarified that this case was separate from the ongoing legal discussions regarding the broader implications of the SIR, which are currently being addressed by the Supreme Court.

Background of the Petition

Salgaonkar and his family had relocated to a new address within the same constituency prior to the enumeration phase of the SIR. They followed the guidance of their local Booth Level Officer (BLO) and submitted Form 8 applications to update their residential details. However, when the draft electoral roll was published, their names were conspicuously absent.

After the publication, the family received automated notifications indicating that their Form 8 applications had been rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). This rejection occurred after the deadline for filing claims and objections had lapsed. The Election Commission subsequently advised the family to submit Form 6 applications instead, as their names were no longer included in the draft roll.

The petitioners contested this requirement, asserting that Form 6 is intended for first-time voters and would necessitate existing electors to make an incorrect declaration. They argued that Form 8 is specifically designed for voters seeking amendments, including changes to their address.

Arguments Presented in Court

During the hearings, the Election Commission maintained that the SIR process was a new, de novo exercise, distinct from the regular Special Summary Revision. They argued that the enumeration slips were not completed at the family’s previous address, which led to the software being unable to match their Form 8 applications with existing Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) records, resulting in the automated rejections.

The petitioners countered this argument by stating that procedural and software-related challenges should not infringe upon the electoral rights of existing voters. They emphasised that the inability to update their information due to administrative issues should not prevent them from exercising their right to vote.

The High Court’s refusal to stay its directives means that the Election Commission is now obligated to verify the new address of the Salgaonkar family and complete their enrolment within the specified ten-day timeframe. This ruling provides significant relief to the family, who had raised concerns about the lack of an appropriate legal mechanism to restore their names in the electoral roll.

The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised due to administrative errors or procedural complications, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in safeguarding electoral rights.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share