The Bombay High Court at Goa has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the automated rejection of Form 8 applications filed by voters seeking to update their address during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The court raised concerns over a system under which Form 8 applications are rejected when voters have not submitted a pre-filled enumeration form at their previous address, potentially leaving shifted voters out of the electoral roll.
The issue came up in a petition concerning voters who had shifted residence within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency and submitted Form 8 for a change of address. According to the petitioners, their applications were rejected after the electoral system could not find their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) records.
Bar & Bench reported that the ECI told the court that its system accepts Form 8 when it can link the application to the voter’s enumeration-form data. Where an enumeration form has not been submitted, the voter’s details are not available in the database, and the Form 8 application is automatically rejected.
The ECI’s counsel, Gaurish Agni, said the voters had not submitted the pre-filled enumeration forms at their previous address. He argued that voters who shift residence also have a responsibility to inform the poll panel and that, once a name is omitted from the draft roll, the voter can seek fresh inclusion by submitting Form 6 during the claims and objections period.
However, the court questioned why the Form 8 applications could not be kept pending instead of being rejected. It observed that if such applications were rejected on a technicality, a voter could end up being neither on the roll at the old address nor included at the new one.
The bench also questioned whether an administrative software system could effectively restrict procedures provided for under election law. It asked the ECI to explain why officials could not examine such applications independently instead of relying on the system’s rejection option.
The court further raised concerns about the broader implications for voters who had shifted residence. It said Form 8 is the normal mechanism for voters seeking to update their address and suggested that such applications could instead be kept in abeyance until the roll was finalised and then considered.
The ECI maintained that the SIR guidelines provide for Form 6 where a voter’s name is not carried into the draft roll because the enumeration form was not received. The commission also argued that the petitioners could still use Form 6 to seek inclusion.
The court also sought to know whether deleting a voter’s name from the roll could be justified solely by the functioning of the software and without following the statutory safeguards under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules.
The case will be heard next on October 5.
