Kumar Bahukhandi
The Bombay High Court building in Mumbai. The court’s Goa Bench has questioned the Election Commission over the deletion of names from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision, observing that administrative software cannot override statutory electoral procedures. (File Photo)
Goa Bench asks ECI to explain legal basis for deleting names without a hearing after six members of a family were removed from electoral rolls
Key Highlights
- Bombay High Court’s Goa Bench raises concerns over voter-name deletions during Special Intensive Revision
- Case involves six members of a family from Goa’s Santa Cruz Assembly constituency
- Petitioners say their names disappeared despite seeking only a change of address through Form 8
- Court questions reliance on ECI’s ERONET software where statutory procedures are involved
- Bench asks what provision permits deletion of an existing voter without an opportunity to be heard
Panaji: The Bombay High Court’s Goa Bench has raised significant questions over the deletion of names from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), observing that an administrative software system cannot take precedence over statutory electoral procedures.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Amit S. Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes was hearing a petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and five members of his family, whose names had been deleted from the electoral roll in the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency.
The petitioners told the court that they had shifted to another residence within the same Assembly constituency and had been advised by the Booth Level Officer to submit Form 8, which is used for changes or corrections concerning an existing elector.
However, while their applications were being processed, their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) records could reportedly not be located in the Election Commission’s ERONET — Electoral Registration Officers’ Network — system. The software consequently provided officials with a rejection option, according to the petitioners’ case.
They were subsequently informed that their EPICs had already been deleted and that Form 8 could therefore not be processed. The family was instead asked to submit Form 6, ordinarily used for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. The petitioners argued that they were existing electors rather than first-time applicants.
The court questioned how an existing elector could effectively be treated as a new voter because of limitations in an administrative system.
“He was never a new voter. He was an existing voter. He became new for your system,” the bench observed.
The judges also questioned the Election Commission on the legal authority for deleting an elector without providing an opportunity to be heard.
“Show us from the Act what empowers you to delete without hearing?” the bench asked, while expressing concern over officials apparently having to depend upon the software system when processing the applications.
The court further observed that statutory forms and procedures could not lose their meaning merely because a software platform did not provide the required administrative option.
The issue, the bench indicated, could have implications beyond the six petitioners before it, particularly for existing voters who change their residence and seek corresponding corrections in the electoral roll.
The court said that when a Form 8 application is received, the competent authority must apply its mind and determine whether the elector has actually shifted residence rather than allowing the outcome to be dictated solely by the software system.
The proceedings have consequently brought into focus a wider principle surrounding the increasing use of technology in election administration: digital systems may facilitate electoral management, but statutory safeguards and prescribed procedures remain fundamental to decisions affecting an elector’s inclusion on the rolls.
