Bombay High Court Directs Restoration of Six Goa Voters' Names During SIR
The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to restore the names of six members of a family in the electoral roll within 10 days, after their names were omitted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Goa.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar in a petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and five members of his family, residents of the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency in North Goa.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had been registered voters in the Santa Cruz constituency since 1995. After shifting their residence from Part 29 to Part 25 of the same constituency, they submitted Form 8 applications seeking an update of their residential addresses, following instructions from their Booth Level Officer (BLO).
However, their names were omitted from the draft electoral roll. Their Form 8 applications were subsequently rejected, and they were reportedly advised to submit Form 6, which is ordinarily prescribed for first-time voter registration.
The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that Form 6 required them to declare that their names had never been included in an electoral roll, which would have been an incorrect declaration in their circumstances.
High Court's Observations
The High Court examined Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, along with Rules 13, 21A and 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Bench clarified that the statutory provisions governing changes to electoral entries and applications for shifting residence continue to operate even during an intensive revision of electoral rolls.
It held that Form 8 is the appropriate application for an existing voter seeking to change their residential address, whereas Form 6 is intended for persons seeking fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.
The Court rejected the Election Commission's contention that the ongoing SIR exercise permitted Electoral Registration Officers to refuse Form 8 applications. It emphasised that the statutory procedure cannot be suspended merely because the electoral roll is being prepared afresh.
The Bench also observed that deleting or omitting the names of existing electors without providing them a reasonable opportunity of hearing could amount to a denial of their right to vote.
Final Directions
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the Electoral Registration Officer of the Santa Cruz constituency to include the names of all six petitioners in Part 25 of the electoral roll after verifying their residence, within 10 days.
The Court also rejected the Election Commission's request for a two-week stay to enable it to approach the Supreme Court.
Legal Significance
The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in electoral registration. It clarifies that the Special Intensive Revision process does not override the statutory rights of existing voters to seek corrections or changes in their electoral details under the prescribed legal framework.