In an order of significant political import, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to add back names of six voters deleted from the voters' list during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.
After extensive hearings for four days, a division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar pronounced the verdict on Thursday.
"We have allowed petition. We have also rejected the prayer to keep this petition pending till Supreme Court decides (SIR's validity). We issue mandamus and direct the officer to include names of petitioners after confirming residence within 10 days," the Court said pronouncing its order.
ECI counsel Gaurish Agni sought a stay on the order.
However, the Court refused.
"No stay. How can we grant stay on including names of voters in the list! You get a stay from Supreme Court," the bench said.
The order was passed on petitions filed by voters challenging their deletion from voters list and the rejection of Form 8 applications.
The ECI had earlier requested the Court defer the hearing in the matter citing a Supreme Court order which asked the High Court to keep the writ proceedings in abeyance. The ECI said that the challenge in Goa encompasses the entire SIR process, including voter deletion exercises.
However, the Court prima facie ruled that the present proceedings were different from ongoing SIR challenges elsewhere, noting that the revision process in Goa is already complete.
The bench noted that the appellate rejections are a consequence of the initial deletions.
During the course of the hearing, the High Court also criticised the ECI’s automated system for mechanically rejecting Form 8 address changes.
The bench observed that requiring electors to sign enumeration forms for former residences effectively coerces them into making false declarations.
The bench questioned whether such automatic rejections undermine an inclusive voter roll, suggesting applications should be held in abeyance rather than outrightly rejected so that genuine relocated voters are not disenfranchised.
Rebuking the ECI for citing public sentiment to justify its revision framework, the Court made it clear that legal proceedings must be governed strictly by statutory law rather than external public perception.
The court also flagged a "catch-22 situation" where relocated voters face rejected Form 8 address updates and are improperly forced to file Form 6, which compels a false declaration that they are not registered elsewhere.
It emphasised that statutory rules mandate giving electors a hearing before their names are removed from the original roll, an obligation that cannot be bypassed while the revision process is still underway.
The bench questioned the rationale of using the SIR to drop voters, reiterating that the ECI’s foremost constitutional duty is to prevent the disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.
Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for ECI, argued that absence from the draft SIR is a non-inclusion rather than a deletion, as rolls are prepared completely afresh (de novo) without automatically carrying forward prior entries.
Because the draft roll is built strictly from newly collected enumeration forms, un-enumerated individuals have no active record to modify using Form 8.
Consequently, anyone omitted must follow due process and register as a fresh voter by submitting Form 6 during the claims and objections period, he said.