Goa bench questioned voter deletions during SIR, describing citizens’ predicament as “Catch-22”.
Six family members alleged technical restrictions prevented address changes after voter deletions.
Judges questioned requiring existing voters to submit declarations intended for new applicants.
Voters In A ‘Catch-22’: Bombay High Court’s Questions ECI Over SIR Deletions
“But what are you doing? If citizens are being removed from the list then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process?” the Goa bench asked to EC
Summary
The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench on Monday lambasted Election Commission, questioning why eligible citizens were being excluded from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), after a family said its names had been deleted and technical restrictions prevented it from updating its address.
Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S Jamsandekar described the predicament as a “Catch-22” and reminded the Election Commission of India (ECI) of its responsibility to ensure eligible Indian citizens remain on the final voter list.
“But what are you doing? If citizens are being removed from the list then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process?” the bench asked, according to Live Law.
The court was hearing a petition by Paresh Salgaoncar and five family members, whose names were removed after they shifted to another house within the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency.
The petitioners said their Form 8 applications to change their addresses were rejected because their identity records had already been removed, leaving the software and ERONET system unable to process the requests. Election officials then directed them to submit Form 6, meant for first-time voter enrolment.
The bench questioned whether existing voters could be required to make declarations intended for new applicants, noting that false declarations could expose them to legal consequences.
Referring to Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the judges said election authorities must give citizens a hearing before removing their names from existing rolls.
The bench also examined the SIR guidelines alongside the Supreme Court’s observations on the Commission’s duty to include eligible citizens.
“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.
ECI counsel Gaurish Agni submitted that the guidelines recognise an earlier electoral roll that remains in force. He also said a person moving between constituencies could seek transfer of their Electoral Photo Identity Card to the new constituency through Form 8. Arguments were scheduled to continue on Tuesday.
Advertisement
Published At: