Very perturbed: Bombay HC says draft roll can't justify deletion of voters' names

The Bombay High Court questioned the Election Commission over voter deletions during SIR, saying a draft roll cannot justify removing names without due process. The court also questioned reliance on ERONET software and asked what law allows deletion without giving voters a hearing.

In Short

• HC says draft roll cannot justify deletion and software cannot override law
• Hears family's plea, saying voter names deleted after shifting within Santa Cruz seat
• Court demands legal basis for deletion without hearing and warns of wider impact

The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission over the deletion of voters’ names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), saying a draft electoral roll cannot be used as the basis for deleting names and that administrative software cannot override statutory law.

The court was hearing a petition filed by six members of a family whose names were deleted from the electoral roll after they moved to a new house within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency. The bench said it was “very perturbed” by the EC’s explanation that its software did not allow officials to process their applications.

A division bench of Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes also questioned the EC on the legal provision that allows voters to be deleted without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioners, led by Paresh Salgaonkar, said they had shifted to a new house within the same constituency and were instructed by the Booth Level Officer to submit Form 8 for a change of address.

However, when their applications were processed, their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) details were reportedly not found in the ERONET system. The petitioners said the software then gave officials only one option — “reject”. ERONET, or Electoral Registration Officers’ Network, is the EC’s web-based system for processing electoral forms and managing voter rolls.

The family was subsequently informed that their EPICs had already been deleted from the rolls and that their Form 8 applications could not be processed.

They were instead asked to submit Form 6, which is meant for fresh inclusion of names in the electoral roll. The petitioners argued that this was not applicable to them as they were existing voters seeking only a change of address within the same constituency.

The bench questioned how an existing voter could effectively become a new voter because of the software. “Otherwise, Form 6, 7 or 8 have no meaning,” the court said, explaining that the statutory forms cover new voters, deletion-related requests and voters shifting residence.

The judges told the EC, “He was never a new voter. He was an existing voter. He became new for your system.”

The court also asked the EC to show the legal provision that empowered it to delete a voter without a hearing.

“Show us from the Act what empowers you to delete without hearing?” the bench asked, adding that officials appeared to have relied on the software after being unable to process the Form 8 application.

“We are very perturbed by this,” the judges said, wondering how many other voters could have been affected without approaching the court.

The bench said authorities must apply their mind when a Form 8 application is submitted and determine whether the voter has actually shifted residence.

The judges also warned that the issue could extend beyond the six-member family before the court. “Here there is only one family. Take a situation where there are so many people who have shifted residence,” the bench observed.

- Ends