Stories
Bombay HC Questions Voter Deletion and Form Rejections Under SIR Process
- •The Bombay High Court highlighted a catch-22 situation for voters who changed residences, questioning how they can update details when address modification applications are rejected during the Special Intensive Revision.
- •A division bench questioned the Election Commission of India over the automated rejection of Form 8 applications submitted by voters in Goa for address changes.
- •The court noted that deleting voters from draft electoral rolls without individual notice potentially violates statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards.
- •The ECI defended its stance, stating that an intensive revision under the Representation of the People Act involves preparing rolls afresh and that names are removed if enumeration forms are not submitted.
Key Questions Answered
The Bombay High Court pointed out that voters who changed residences face a Catch-22 when their Form 8 address modification applications are rejected and they are redirected to Form 6, which requires a false declaration that they are not registered elsewhere, while draft rolls omit them without proper prior hearings.
The ECI argued that under Section 25(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, intensive revision involves preparing electoral rolls afresh, meaning voters who do not receive or submit enumeration forms naturally do not appear in the draft rolls.
The High Court questioned whether the automated, software-based rejection of Form 8 applications and the exclusion of eligible citizens could undermine the objective of maintaining an inclusive and accurate electoral roll.
