The Bombay High Court at Goa on October 1 questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its automated system for rejecting Form 8 applications filed by voters who had shifted their residence. The Bench raised concerns that the system could leave relocated voters outside the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
The proceedings arose from a petition by Paresh Salgaonkar and his family members, who challenged the non-inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls after they moved to another residence within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency.
Background
During SIR, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) use pre-filled enumeration forms to verify voters at their recorded addresses. The issue before the Court was what happens when a voter has already shifted and therefore cannot submit an enumeration form at the former address.
The petitioners said they had submitted Form 8, which is used to report a change of residence. However, their applications could not be processed because their voter records were no longer available in the ECI's system. They were subsequently asked to use Form 6, which is ordinarily used for seeking fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.
The ECI maintained that Form 8 could not be processed in such circumstances because the applicants' names were absent from the draft roll. Its counsel also argued that voters who had failed to update their address earlier could not insist on processing through Form 8.
The Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar questioned whether an automated system could effectively determine the fate of a voter's application when statutory procedures governed electoral registration.
The Court was particularly concerned with the explanation that officials had no option except to reject applications because of the software. The Bench also questioned whether applications could instead be kept pending and considered after completion of the roll.
The Court observed that the purpose of the exercise was ultimately to ensure that the electoral roll accurately reflected eligible voters.
“The endeavour ultimately is to bring up a roll that reflects actually who are the voters.”
The Bench also questioned reliance on public perception during judicial proceedings, stressing that the Court had to examine the matter according to law.
“What the public thinks about all of us is immaterial. We are dealing here in a court.”
The judges further questioned how the procedure would work for voters who had genuinely shifted from their earlier addresses and could not sign an enumeration form for a residence where they no longer lived.
The Court asked the ECI to reconcile its software-driven process with the statutory framework governing electoral rolls and the procedure for changes of address.
The hearing remains ongoing, with further arguments scheduled for October 5.
