A Bombay High Court’s Goa bench has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the deletion of voter names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, after six members of a family said their Form 8 applications for an address change could not be processed because of an issue with the ERONET system. Administrative software cannot override the statutory provisions governing electoral rolls and sought an explanation on how voter names could be removed without giving affected electors an opportunity to be heard.
Paresh Salgaoncar and five members of his family had already moved to a new home in the same constituency in Santa Cruz Assembly. In the petitioners' view, they were already voters and they were advised by a Booth Level Officer (BLO) to submit Form 8 to update their residential address. But when they applied, their applications were received and the system found that their EPIC records could not be found. The petitioners said officials were left with only one option to refuse the applications using ERONET.
Why The Bombay High Court Questioned The Deletion Process
A division bench of Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes questioned the ECI's explanation that the software system did not allow the Form 8 applications to be processed. An administrative system has to operate within the law and cannot independently determine whether an eligible voter should remain on the electoral roll.
The bench specifically asked what provision of the law enabled authorities to delete a voter's name without an opportunity for a hearing. It also questioned how an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) could perform his statutory duties if the software did not provide a mechanism to act on an order that did not match the system-generated outcome.
The court worried that officials appeared to have relied on the software response instead of independently looking at the voters' applications. It also raised the possibility that the same technical or procedural issues could affect other voters who had moved residence during the revision exercise.
What Is Form 8 And Why Was It Important In This Case?
Form 8 is used by an existing elector for purposes such as shifting residence, correction of entries and replacement of an EPIC. Form 6 is used for fresh enrolment of a person as an elector. Hence, the petitioners argued that asking them to submit Form 6 after their names had been deleted would effectively treat them as new voters even though they were already enrolled electors who just moved within the same constituency.
The court also questioned the practical consequences of such an approach. The statutory forms could lose their intended use if an existing voter were removed from the roll because of a system issue, the judges said, and was then required to apply as a new elector, they added.
The court noticed that the affected family had not become new voters just because the software could not find their records any longer. It questioned how officials were supposed to correct such situations when the system did not provide an appropriate route for processing the Form 8 applications.
ECI Position On The ERONET Issue
The Election Commission's side argued that the system did not allow Form 8 applications to be processed at any stage of the SIR exercise. In later reporting on the hearing, the Commission also maintained that there was no intention to deliberately remove eligible voters and that deletions were based on inputs received from Booth Level Officers.
The issue then is how the statutory electoral-roll process is related to the technology employed by election officials. The court’s questions are whether a software restriction may be imposed by the election authorities that prevents them from performing a function which otherwise is available under the relevant law and rules.
It also highlights the need for a process that can allow an officer to review an application and correct a technical error, rather than for the software to be the final administrative decision.
Court Raises Concern Over Wider Impact
The Bombay High Court's observations were not limited to the six petitioners. The bench wondered how many other voters who had shifted residence might face similar difficulties without approaching the court.
The judges noted that the case was a case of just one family but asked the authorities to consider the consequences if the same problem affected a much larger number of voters. The issue is particularly relevant when a large-scale electoral-roll revision is on the way and large numbers of electors may have to verify or update their details.
The court has so far sought more clarity on the relationship between the statutory procedure, decisions made by electoral officials and ERONET. This is not only a technical error but also whether the administrative technology in place provides the officials with the tools to make decisions within electoral law.
SIR Exercise And Electoral Roll Revision
The controversy comes during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The ECI has described SIR as an exercise to update and verify electoral rolls, with enumeration, publication of draft rolls, claims and objections and their finalisation. The ECI's official voter-services portal also provides facilities related to SIR, like checking names and submitting documents against notices.
The Commission has been conducting SIR in several states and Union Territories in phases. Goa is among the states covered in the relevant phase of the exercise.
The Goa case has brought attention to the protections that apply when an existing elector's name is affected during the revision process. The court’s observation indicates that the revision exercise still has to operate within the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.
SIR Schedule Extended In Andhra Pradesh And Meghalaya
Meanwhile, the ECI has extended the SIR schedule in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya. According to reports on the Commission's decision, the final electoral roll in Andhra Pradesh is now scheduled for October 16 and the final roll in Meghalaya is scheduled for October 26.
The extensions are part of the Commission continuing the wider electoral roll revision process with respect to different states and Union Territories.
For Goa, the Bombay High Court’s scrutiny is on how technology, administrative decisions and statutory safeguards can work together. An electoral officer has also challenged the validity of an ERONET-generated rejection when an existing voter is seeking a lawful change of address. The matter is likely to be taken further into account when the court looks at what the election authorities did.
