‘You’re giving a go-by to Rules and Acts’: Bombay HC pulls up EC

The Bombay High Court has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the omission of names of members of a family from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Goa, raising concerns over whether software-based procedures can override safeguards prescribed under election laws.

The case relates to Paresh Vasant Salgaonkar and members of his family from the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency. The family had shifted residence within the same constituency and had submitted Form 8, which is prescribed for shifting residence and making corrections to existing electoral-roll entries. Their names, however, did not appear in the draft electoral roll prepared during the SIR exercise.

The ECI’s position was that the family’s old address continued to appear in the electoral roll and that the required enumeration process had not been completed at that address. The family was consequently treated as falling within the category of absent, shifted, dead or duplicate electors. After their names were not included in the draft roll, they were advised to submit Form 6 for fresh inclusion.

This explanation led to strong questioning from the High Court. The bench questioned why an existing voter who had sought to change residence through Form 8 should be required to apply afresh through Form 6. The judges also questioned the ECI’s explanation that its software did not permit Form 8 applications to be processed during the relevant stage of the SIR exercise.

The court’s central concern was whether an administrative software system could restrict or suspend procedures that are expressly provided for under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The judges observed that statutory powers vested in Electoral Registration Officers cannot effectively be subordinated to the limitations of software.

During the hearing, the bench made the pointed observation that the authorities appeared to be giving a “go by” to the Acts and Rules and proceeding according to their own system. The court also questioned how many other voters might have been affected by similar circumstances. These were oral observations made during the hearing and should not be treated as a final finding against the Election Commission.

The dispute is significant because Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act provides a statutory framework for correction, transposition and deletion of electoral-roll entries, while the Registration of Electors Rules prescribe procedures and safeguards for such action. The court is examining whether those safeguards were adequately followed in the circumstances of the Salgaonkar family’s case.

The controversy also comes against the backdrop of the wider SIR exercise in Goa. More than 1.18 million electors were covered at the beginning of the revision, with a significant number of names subsequently not carried forward into the final roll on grounds including death, permanent migration, absence, duplication and other reasons. The Election Commission has maintained that the exercise was undertaken in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that affected voters were given opportunities to seek inclusion or correction.

The Goa case therefore raises a broader question about the role of technology in electoral administration: whether software should merely facilitate decisions taken by statutory election officials or whether limitations built into a digital system can effectively determine what those officials are able to process.

The issue has gained additional significance following the Election Commission’s subsequent decision to review its ECINET electoral-roll platform and examine whether the system adequately conforms to the relevant Acts and Rules. The Commission has also indicated that greater flexibility would be provided to field officials where required.

The High Court has not, at this stage, declared the entire Goa SIR exercise illegal or concluded that all voters whose names were omitted were unlawfully removed. The proceedings are focused on the particular circumstances of the petitioners and the larger legal question of whether statutory electoral procedures can be curtailed by the functioning of an administrative software system.

The case is consequently important beyond the individual voters involved. Its eventual outcome could clarify the relationship between electoral legislation, the powers of Electoral Registration Officers and technology-driven voter-list revision, particularly where the operation of a digital system appears to conflict with procedures expressly prescribed by law.

Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp

Download the TNIE app to stay with us and follow the latest