The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court identified a significant issue affecting voters who may be unjustly removed from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The bench argued that when voters are excluded without proper notice or opportunity to contest their removal, it contradicts the Election Commission’s constitutional duty to protect eligible citizens from arbitrary exclusion.

This statement emerged during the hearing of a petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar. He seeks to contest the removal of his name and those of five family members from Goa’s electoral roll. Salgaonkar contended that their Form 8 applications for address changes were not accepted during the SIR process, leading to their names being struck from the draft voter roll.

Rejection of Address Change Applications

According to Salgaonkar, he submitted Form 8 for himself and his family based on instructions from the Booth Level Officer (BLO). However, after the deadline for filing claims and objections expired on January 21, he received an automated notification confirming the rejection of their requests by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

The notification indicated that their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) had been cancelled due to their address change. To rectify this, Salgaonkar was allegedly advised to submit Form 6, as the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) system reportedly lacked provisions for restoring or reviewing deleted EPICs.

During the proceedings, Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar noted that the draft roll does not take effect until the SIR process concludes, meaning that the previous electoral roll remains valid until that point. The judges raised concerns regarding the absence of notice when a voter’s name is removed, questioning how the ECl could communicate such a decision without informing the affected individuals

Concerns About the SIR Process

Advocate Gaurish Agni, representing the Election Commission, explained that notices are posted publicly since the latest voter information may not be available at the time. The bench countered this by stating that if notice were given, it would allow voters to present their claims, and that dismissing voters based solely on the draft roll, without consideration of their circumstances, is inappropriate.

The bench expressed concerns about compliance with Rule 21 from the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which governs the inclusion of inadvertently omitted names. Discussions during the hearing questioned the ECI’s stance that individuals who have relocated must make false declarations regarding the SIR.

While Form 6 is designated for new voters, Form 8 is used for amendments such as address updates. The Election Commission asserted that voters whose names are deleted during the SIR process must complete Form 6, irrespective of whether their move was within the same constituency. The hearing regarding Salgaonkar’s petition will continue on Tuesday, as the court aims to clarify the procedural aspects related to voter registrations.

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