'Citizens In Catch-22': Bombay High Court On Voter Deletions Under SIR

A division bench of the Bombay High Court in Goa has raised sharp questions against the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the deletion of voters' names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The division bench comprising Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes observed that citizens are being placed in a "Catch-22" situation with no clear legal remedy to retain or restore their electoral status.

The hearing stems from a petition filed by Paresh Salgaoncar and five family members whose names were removed from the voter rolls after moving to a new house within the Santa Cruz assembly constituency.

The petitioners said their Form 8 applications for address changes were rejected due to software and ERONET system constraints after their identity records were removed.

Election officials subsequently instructed the family to fill Form 6 - a mechanism designated strictly for first-time voter enrolment.

The court criticised this requirement, emphasising that existing voters cannot be forced to make false declarations meant for new applicants, which could expose citizens to legal risk.

Referring to Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the judges underscored that election authorities are legally obligated to grant a hearing before striking any citizen off the existing electoral rolls.

The high court questioned the primary purpose of the SIR process if eligible voters are routinely excluded due to technical processes.

The judges said that apart from the obligations of BLOs (booth-level officers), the mandate given in paragraph 5 of the order (related to SIR) says no citizen should be left out. "If you read paragraph 8 of the order it says the commission has an obligation to ensure that only persons who are citizens are on the roll," they said.

"If by this process, if the citizens are excluded (from roll), then how do we raise this matter?" the bench questioned.

Lawyer Gaurish Agni, representing the ECI, said the commission guidelines specifically say there is an earlier roll, which is in force. During the hearing, the bench emphasised nobody should be left out of the voters' list.

The judge said all these things have to be read with the mandate given by the guidelines. "The mandate given by the guidelines shows that if a voter is eligible, he or she should not be left out (of the list)," the court said.

Agni said that when a person moves from one constituency to another, he or she has the option of applying for the transfer of their EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) to the current segment along with Form 8.

The court will continue hearing the arguments in the matter on Tuesday.