The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a crucial observation regarding the Special Intensive Revision, known as SIR, of electoral rolls. The court noted that when an eligible citizen's name fails to appear in the draft voter list formulated during the SIR process, that individual can be pushed into a precarious situation. This is especially true if the Election Commission refuses to evaluate their grievances by referencing the existing voter list. The bench firmly stated that an eligible citizen cannot be excluded from the electoral rolls simply because their name is absent from the draft roll. If a person meets the legal requirements of an eligible voter, electoral authorities have a duty to hear their case.
The Petition Filed by the Salgaonkar Family
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar. The proceedings arose from a writ petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and his family members from Goa. During the ongoing SIR exercise, the names of the petitioners were not included in the draft electoral rolls. During the hearing, the court underscored that if a voter receives a notice from the Election Commission and clarifies that they have relocated their residence and intend to submit Form-8, the commission cannot simply decline to hear them.
The judges emphasized that the election machinery cannot dismiss a citizen's plea by asserting that the existing system disallows it or by contending that hearing them is impossible because their name is not reflected in the draft roll. Procedural constraints cannot be used as an excuse to shut out legitimate voters from participating in the democratic framework.
Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act
The division bench placed significant focus on the statutory framework, observing that the electoral roll referenced in Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act pertains to the existing operational roll, not merely the draft roll. The judges stated that the entirety of the revision exercise must be viewed against the backdrop of the existing voter list. If election authorities fail to adopt this approach, affected voters will be left without any viable, effective mechanism to voice their grievances or correct administrative errors.
The court pointed out the severe operational consequences of such omissions. If an individual's name is left out of the draft voter list, the practical fallout could be that the person is effectively knocked out of the existing operational list as well, stripping them of their active voting status without due recourse.
Responsibilities of BLOs and Safeguarding Eligible Voters
Referring to the official instructions governing the SIR exercise, the bench pointed out that beyond the duties assigned to Booth Level Officers, or BLOs, the primary imperative is ensuring that no eligible citizen is left disenfranchised. The fundamental objective embedded in the SIR directives is to ensure that the voter roll strictly contains eligible citizens. The bench questioned how election officials planned to remedy the situation if the revision exercise itself ends up removing legitimate voters from the list.
Appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, advocate Gaurish Agni submitted that the commission's guidelines explicitly recognize the existing voter roll as remaining in force. He informed the court that whenever a citizen shifts from one assembly constituency to another, they have the option to apply via Form-8 to transfer their registration to the new constituency. Through this route, citizens can also secure the required modifications to their voter ID, or EPIC card.
Court Demands a Harmonious Reading of Guidelines
Despite the assurances from the commission's counsel, the Bombay High Court reiterated that the procedures must be implemented in a manner that protects every eligible individual from arbitrary omission. The bench noted that all directives governing the SIR exercise must be read together harmoniously to fulfill their overarching goal: ensuring that no qualified voter is excluded. With arguments remaining inconclusive, the High Court directed that hearings in the matter will resume on Tuesday.
