It is a complete Catch-22 situation for voters: Bombay High Court questions rejection of Form 8 during SIR

The Bombay High Court on Monday flagged the "complete Catch-22 situation" being faced by voters who have changed their residences in the recent past [Paresh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa & Ors.]

A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar noted that current guidelines leave electors, who have shifted residences, without a legitimate remedy during the revision process.

It noted that the relocated electors are forced to submit Form 6 for new enrolment when their Form 8 for address modification is getting rejected. Form 6 requires voters to declare that they are not registered elsewhere. 

“The Form 6, it is a false declaration. He gives you Form 8, you say I cannot touch your Form 8, you must give the enumeration. He says, I do not want to give the enumeration, I am giving you Form 8. But section 21 says you have to hear him before removing his name, not from the draft, from the original role,” the Court said. 

The High Court probed the core purpose of conducting a Special Intensive Revision. While questioning the rationale behind dropping voters during the revision process, the Court observed:

"Entire SIR procedure was on the basis that had to find out whether an elector is actually an Indian citizen or not. The basis of the SIR was not to see whether the voter is there or not. It is to find out whether he is an Indian citizen or not," the court said.

Advocate Gauresh Agni, appearing for the ECI, submitted

"There were illegal immigrants also."

The Bench addressed this submission by countering:

"So, will this subserve the purpose by a Form 6 or a Form 8? Judgment [of the Supreme Court on Bihar SIR nowhere says that the manner of doing this is going to be by Form 6. Law is either by the legislature or if it is delegated, or a rule-making power."

The Court further questioned the ECI on its broader constitutional duties. 

“If, by this process, citizens are excluded, then how do we read this mandate?” 

The Bench asserted that the ECI’s primary constitutional obligation remains the prevention of disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s automated rejection of Form 8 applications submitted for updating voter addresses in Goa. 

The petitions contend that systematically deleting voters from draft rolls without individual notice violates statutory rules and constitutional safeguards.

Advocate Gauresh Agni, appearing for the ECI, argued that an intensive revision under Section 25(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, requires preparing rolls completely afresh, automatically excluding those who don't get the enumeration forms. 

“Whoever is not given the enumeration form, the name has to go off the draft role and if you are not in the draft role, there is no entry which can be transferred to another place,” Agni argued. 

On the issue of notice requirement, Agni said that the ECI had posted notices on public boards:

“There is a notice put up even on the notice board because the voters’ fresh details may not be available with us before removal. There were instances where people had shifted, there were no details of where they have shifted available,” Agni clarified.

The Bench rejected the argument, saying: 

“Draft role will not come in picture until the SIR is complete. Here the SIR is not complete. You are in the process."

Earlier on October 1, the Bench had expressed concern over how the ECI's automated software system rejects Form 8 applications filed by electors reporting a change of address, questioning whether such automatic rejections defeat the ultimate objective of maintaining an inclusive voter roll.