The Bombay High Court has raised serious questions about the procedure being followed by the Election Commission during the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. The court observed that the electoral system must operate according to law and prescribed rules rather than according to the limitations of software.
The observations were made during the hearing of a case involving six members of a family from the Santa Cruz area of Mumbai. Their names were removed from the electoral roll during the SIR process. The family had also submitted Form 8 to change their address from one part of the constituency to another, but their names were subsequently removed from the voter list.
A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamdar was hearing the matter. During the proceedings, the court questioned the legal basis for removing a person's name from the electoral roll without first providing an opportunity to be heard.
The court observed that when a voter's name is proposed to be removed, the person should be given an opportunity to present their case. The court also directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officer, or ERO, to remain present during the proceedings.
The Election Commission's counsel explained that during the SIR process, the system did not allow Form 8 to be processed. According to the explanation placed before the court, the technical limitation resulted in the relevant changes not being made and the names of the concerned voters being removed from the electoral roll.
The court questioned whether a technical limitation could prevent an officer from carrying out a responsibility that arises under law. It observed that an ERO responsible for decisions concerning the electoral roll should have the ability to implement lawful decisions rather than remain dependent on a software system.
The court further indicated that an election official cannot become helpless because of the instructions or limitations of a software platform. According to the court's observations, technology should assist the implementation of the law and should not replace the legal process.
The court also stressed the importance of keeping voters at the centre of the electoral process. It observed that the Election Commission has the responsibility to ensure that eligible voters are not excluded from the electoral roll merely because of a technical limitation.
During the hearing, the Election Commission's counsel maintained that Form 8 could not be processed during the SIR period. The court questioned whether the introduction of a special revision process could effectively suspend or bypass existing legal provisions and procedures.
The court observed that introducing a separate administrative process does not mean that existing laws and rules can be treated as temporarily inoperative. It expressed concern about the procedure and its possible wider impact on voters.
The bench also raised a broader question about the number of people who may have faced similar difficulties. The court noted that if six voters had experienced such a problem and had approached the court, there could potentially be other people who faced similar difficulties but did not have the means or opportunity to approach the judiciary.
The Election Commission also informed the court that the names of some voters had subsequently been included in the electoral roll after they submitted Form 6. In the case of the family before the court, however, the Commission said that they had neither submitted the enumeration form nor been willing to proceed with Form 6.
The court's observations have brought attention to the relationship between technology, administrative procedures and legal safeguards during large-scale electoral roll revisions. The proceedings underline that technological systems used for electoral administration have to operate within the framework of applicable law.
The matter remains before the court. Further proceedings are expected to examine the circumstances in which the six voters' names were removed and whether the required legal procedure and opportunity to be heard were followed.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
