गोवा हाई कोर्ट ने कहा: निवास बदलने वाले मतदाताओं के लिए SIR में फँसी “कैच‑22” स्थिति

Goa High Court flags catch-22 for voters caught in SIR, Form 6 row

The Bombay High Court's Goa bench flagged a "catch-22" for voters during SIR, questioning the EC's handling of Form 8 applications from those who shifted residence. The court said voters could be left without a viable option if Form 8 is rejected and they are instead asked to submit Form 6.

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday pointed to a “catch-22” predicament, saying that if a voter is excluded through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process without proper notice or a chance to object using the correct mechanism, it creates a contradiction with the Election Commission's constitutional obligation to ensure eligible citizens are not arbitrarily left off the electoral roll.

The High Court is hearing a plea filed by Paresh Salgaonkar challenging the deletion of his and five of his family members' names from Goa's electoral roll after their Form 8 applications for a change of address were not accepted during the SIR.

The petitioner reportedly said that he had filled Form 8 for himself and his family on the instructions of the ward's BLO, but his and his family's names were deleted from the draft voter roll.

After January 21, when the period for filing claims and objections had expired, he was alerted by an automated message that their Form 8 applications had been rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

He was reportedly told that their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) had been deleted because they had changed their address and that the only option available was to submit Form 6, as there was reportedly no option to restore or review a deleted EPIC in the ECI's software.

The bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar noted that the draft roll does not come into the picture until the SIR is completed and that, until then, the previous roll remains in force.

“If you have removed the name, then to whom will you send a notice that we have removed your name?” asked the bench, while observing that a notice should be sent before removing the name of a voter from the list.

Advocate Gaurish Agni, representing the EC, submitted, “A notice is put on the notice board because the voters' fresh details will not be available.”

The bench said, “If you give notice, the gentleman comes and tells you that I have shifted and gives you Form 8. You can't tell him I will not hear you. My system does not allow you because you have used the draft roll. You can't do that. Because the roll that has been referred to in Rule Number 21 is the existing roll, not your draft roll. And everything must be seen qua the existing roll.”

“Otherwise, the voter has absolutely no way out of this. Look at this, it's a complete Catch-22 situation for him. He fills Form 6, it's a false declaration. He gives you Form 8, you say I cannot touch your Form 8. You must give the enumeration. He says I don't want the enumeration, I am giving you Form 8 but 21 says you have to hear him before removing him. 21 refers to the original roll,” it further pointed out.

Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, governs the inclusion of names inadvertently omitted.

The High Court had earlier questioned the EC on whether it expected people who had shifted residence to give a false declaration during the SIR when they did not reside at that address anymore. Form 6 is for new voters, while Form 8 is for making changes such as addresses.

The EC stated that during the SIR, as names get deleted, citizens are supposed to fill Form 6 and not Form 8, even if they have merely shifted home within the same constituency.

The hearing in the plea will continue on Tuesday.

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday pointed to a “catch-22” predicament, saying that if a voter is excluded through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process without proper notice or a chance to object using the correct mechanism, it creates a contradiction with the Election Commission's constitutional obligation to ensure eligible citizens are not arbitrarily left off the electoral roll.

The High Court is hearing a plea filed by Paresh Salgaonkar challenging the deletion of his and five of his family members' names from Goa's electoral roll after their Form 8 applications for a change of address were not accepted during the SIR.

The petitioner reportedly said that he had filled Form 8 for himself and his family on the instructions of the ward's BLO, but his and his family's names were deleted from the draft voter roll.

After January 21, when the period for filing claims and objections had expired, he was alerted by an automated message that their Form 8 applications had been rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

He was reportedly told that their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) had been deleted because they had changed their address and that the only option available was to submit Form 6, as there was reportedly no option to restore or review a deleted EPIC in the ECI's software.

The bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar noted that the draft roll does not come into the picture until the SIR is completed and that, until then, the previous roll remains in force.

“If you have removed the name, then to whom will you send a notice that we have removed your name?” asked the bench, while observing that a notice should be sent before removing the name of a voter from the list.

Advocate Gaurish Agni, representing the EC, submitted, “A notice is put on the notice board because the voters' fresh details will not be available.”

The bench said, “If you give notice, the gentleman comes and tells you that I have shifted and gives you Form 8. You can't tell him I will not hear you. My system does not allow you because you have used the draft roll. You can't do that. Because the roll that has been referred to in Rule Number 21 is the existing roll, not your draft roll. And everything must be seen qua the existing roll.”

“Otherwise, the voter has absolutely no way out of this. Look at this, it's a complete Catch-22 situation for him. He fills Form 6, it's a false declaration. He gives you Form 8, you say I cannot touch your Form 8. You must give the enumeration. He says I don't want the enumeration, I am giving you Form 8 but 21 says you have to hear him before removing him. 21 refers to the original roll,” it further pointed out.

Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, governs the inclusion of names inadvertently omitted.

The High Court had earlier questioned the EC on whether it expected people who had shifted residence to give a false declaration during the SIR when they did not reside at that address anymore. Form 6 is for new voters, while Form 8 is for making changes such as addresses.

The EC stated that during the SIR, as names get deleted, citizens are supposed to fill Form 6 and not Form 8, even if they have merely shifted home within the same constituency.

The hearing in the plea will continue on Tuesday.

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday pointed to a “catch-22” predicament, saying that if a voter is excluded through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process without proper notice or a chance to object using the correct mechanism, it creates a contradiction with the Election Commission's constitutional obligation to ensure eligible citizens are not arbitrarily left off the electoral roll.

The High Court is hearing a plea filed by Paresh Salgaonkar challenging the deletion of his and five of his family members' names from Goa's electoral roll after their Form 8 applications for a change of address were not accepted during the SIR.

The petitioner reportedly said that he had filled Form 8 for himself and his family on the instructions of the ward's BLO, but his and his family's names were deleted from the draft voter roll.

After January 21, when the period for filing claims and objections had expired, he was alerted by an automated message that their Form 8 applications had been rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

He was reportedly told that their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) had been deleted because they had changed their address and that the only option available was to submit Form 6, as there was reportedly no option to restore or review a deleted EPIC in the ECI's software.

The bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar noted that the draft roll does not come into the picture until the SIR is completed and that, until then, the previous roll remains in force.

“If you have removed the name, then to whom will you send a notice that we have removed your name?” asked the bench, while observing that a notice should be sent before removing the name of a voter from the list.

Advocate Gaurish Agni, representing the EC, submitted, “A notice is put on the notice board because the voters' fresh details will not be available.”

The bench said, “If you give notice, the gentleman comes and tells you that I have shifted and gives you Form 8. You can't tell him I will not hear you. My system does not allow you because you have used the draft roll. You can't do that. Because the roll that has been referred to in Rule Number 21 is the existing roll, not your draft roll. And everything must be seen qua the existing roll.”

“Otherwise, the voter has absolutely no way out of this. Look at this, it's a complete Catch-22 situation for him. He fills Form 6, it's a false declaration. He gives you Form 8, you say I cannot touch your Form 8. You must give the enumeration. He says I don't want the enumeration, I am giving you Form 8 but 21 says you have to hear him before removing him. 21 refers to the original roll,” it further pointed out.

Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, governs the inclusion of names inadvertently omitted.

The High Court had earlier questioned the EC on whether it expected people who had shifted residence to give a false declaration during the SIR when they did not reside at that address anymore. Form 6 is for new voters, while Form 8 is for making changes such as addresses.

The EC stated that during the SIR, as names get deleted, citizens are supposed to fill Form 6 and not Form 8, even if they have merely shifted home within the same constituency.

The hearing in the plea will continue on Tuesday.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News