The Bombay High Court has held that names of existing electors cannot be removed from the voter list merely on the basis of a draft roll prepared under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), observing that an administrative software system cannot override the statutory framework governing electoral rolls.
A division bench of Justice Amit S Jamsandekar and Justice Valmiki Menezes of the Goa bench also questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the legal provision permitting deletion of voters’ names without giving them a hearing.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and five members of his family after their names were deleted from the electoral roll. The family had shifted to another house within the same Santa Cruz assembly constituency and was advised by the Booth Level Officer to submit Form 8 for changing their address.
Software Showed Only ‘Reject’ Option
According to the petitioners, when their Form 8 applications were processed, the ERONET system could not find records corresponding to their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs). As a result, the only option available in the software was to reject the applications.
ERONET, or Electoral Registration Officers’ Network, is the ECI’s web-based system for processing electoral forms and managing electoral rolls.
The petitioners said the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer subsequently informed them that their EPICs had already been deleted from the rolls. Their Form 8 applications therefore could not be processed.
They were instead required to submit Form 6 because ERONET did not provide an option to review or restore the deleted EPIC entries. The family contended that Form 6 applies to first-time electors seeking inclusion in the voter list, whereas they were already registered electors and only wanted their address changed within the same constituency.
Court Says Statutory Forms Cannot Be Rendered Meaningless
The bench said a draft electoral roll could not itself become the basis for deleting voters’ names, as that would undermine the statutory purpose of Forms 6, 7 and 8.
The court observed that these forms specifically deal with fresh inclusion, deletion where a person has lost the right to vote, and changes relating to voters who shift residence.
Referring to the petitioners’ case, the bench noted that the system did not permit acceptance of Form 8 even though Salgaonkar was not a new voter. The court remarked that he had been an existing voter but was effectively treated as a new voter by the software system.
Bench Questions Deletion Without Hearing
The court asked the ECI to identify the provision under the applicable law that authorised deletion of an elector’s name without granting a hearing.
The bench expressed concern that officials appeared to have treated the software response as decisive and recorded that the application had been rejected because the system did not permit further action.
The judges said they were particularly concerned about how many other voters may have faced similar deletion but had not approached the court.
The bench further observed that when Form 8 is submitted, the competent authority must independently examine whether the elector has actually shifted residence instead of allowing the software system to determine the outcome.
It cautioned that such a process could potentially remove large numbers of citizens from electoral rolls, particularly in situations involving many people who have changed residence.
