PANAJI:
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the Election Commission’s decision to reject Form 8 applications during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, observing that the process should not result in eligible voters being left out of the rolls.
The court was hearing a petition filed by six members of a family whose names were deleted from the electoral roll. The petitioners, who had shifted to another house within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency, said a Booth Level Officer had directed them to submit Form 8 for change of address.
The petitioners said their applications were rejected after errors were detected because no record of their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) was found in the system.
The Division Bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S Jamsandekar questioned the Election Commission’s decision, suggesting that such Form 8 applications could instead be kept pending until completion of the SIR and then processed.
The court observed that rejecting the forms could result in a voter being left out of the electoral roll. It asked why the applications could not be retained and considered after the revised roll was finalised, particularly since such applications could provide information about voters who had shifted addresses.
Appearing for the Election Commission, advocate Gaurish Agni said the Commission had the power to reject such applications and explained that the petitioners had not submitted the forms during the enumeration period. He said the enumeration form was the basis of the SIR.
He further submitted that voters left out during the SIR could subsequently apply through Form 6 for inclusion in the electoral roll.
The Bench said the larger objective of the Representation of the People Act and the Election Commission was to ensure that eligible citizens were able to vote. It observed that electoral procedures should serve that objective and questioned whether applications submitted in the wrong form should be rejected rather than kept in abeyance.
The court also observed that regular updating of electoral rolls could reduce such difficulties, pointing to the availability of birth and death records for updating voter lists.
The High Court fixed October 5 for the next hearing.