The petitioners submitted that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer informed them that their EPICs had been deleted from the rolls and consequently, their Form 8 applications could not be processed.
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday said the Election Commission of India (ECI) must endeavour to have as many voters who are eligible on the electoral rolls.
The court said EC has to achieve the objective of not missing out on a voter, even when they come forward “with a wrong form”.
The court is hearing a petition where the names of six members of a family in Goa were deleted from the electoral rolls after their Form 8 applications for address change were rejected.
A division bench of Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes on Thursday said, “We are asking the principle. The Election Commission must endeavour, and we see that is the endeavour…to have as many voters who are eligible on the rolls. Why should it reject the Form-8 if it comes during that [enumeration] period [of SIR]?”
The court said, “The EC has to achieve the objective of not missing out on a voter, where a voter comes forward even with a wrong form.”
The bench said, “Your guidelines are perfectly fine, but why do you have to reject the Form 8? Just keep it pending. Because, what will happen if you don’t keep it pending… is that the person escapes from the roll. He will be neither here nor there.”
The petitioners — Paresh Salgaoncar and five members of his family — said that they had moved to a new house in the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency prior to the commencement of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and were instructed by the booth-level officer (BLO) to submit Form 8 for change of address.
At the time of processing of these forms, errors were reflected since no record of their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) were found, and as such, the only option available in the ERONET login was ‘reject’.
The petitioners submitted that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer informed them that their EPICs had been deleted from the rolls and consequently, their Form 8 applications could not be processed. The only recourse available was to submit Form 6 since there was no option in ERONET for reviewing or restoring the deleted EPICs.
The court said, “We are trying to look at the larger picture. Are you supposed to reject [Form 8] or keep it in abeyance? Complete your roll, finalise your roll and then take all these Form 8s, or you will miss voters otherwise.”
‘Why can’t you just keep it in abeyance?’
“Why must you (EC) reject it? Why can’t you just keep it in abeyance? Finish your roll. Publish your roll. Then deal with all those Form 8s, because that is the best information for you to understand where people are shifting,” the bench said.
“If you reject it on a technicality, that my software will not accept the order, then we are at a loss with this part, where a voter gives a Form 8 and merely because your SIR says give it in Form 6, can you reject it or do you just keep it? What we are on is that you cannot tell someone you shall file Form 6, otherwise you are rejecting this Form 8,” the bench added.
The bench said the EC must consider that there will be a large number of voters from the last SIR who would have shifted. “Form 8 is the normal, correct and genuine way in which people would come forward. If Form 8 is kept on a freeze, we understand. But, where Form 8 is rejected, that means the roll will no longer have that person’s name,” the bench said.
The EC told the court that the guidelines [under SIR] state that if the enumeration form is not received and someone’s name is taken off the draft roll, the only course thereafter is to take Form 6 from this person during the claims and objections period. “…which would mean that the Form 8 had to be rejected or could not have been accepted,” the counsel for EC said.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
