Bombay High Court Questions Voter List Revision Process in Goa

Panaji, October 5 (Daily Kiran) : The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench has raised significant concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list. During a hearing on Monday, the court questioned the Election Commission‘s approach, stating that citizens should not be effectively excluded from the current voter list before a new draft is finalized.

Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamdar reminded the Election Commission that the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure all eligible Indian citizens are included in the final voter list.

The bench expressed skepticism about the SIR process, asking what its purpose is if citizens’ names are being removed from the list. They referenced the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, emphasizing that the current voter list remains valid until the draft prepared under the SIR is finalized.

Justice Menezes noted that although the Election Commission claims to be considering only the draft list, the SIR process appears to be impacting the existing voter list. The court pointed out that the SIR is effectively removing people from the current list rather than just from the draft roll. The judges dismissed the Commission’s argument that the existing voter list need not be considered during the SIR process, insisting, “We cannot ignore the current list.”

The court also addressed the issue of voters who have changed their residence and wish to update their address via Form 8. Justice Menezes questioned why a voter already listed should be required to fill out Form 6 simply because their name is not visible in the draft roll being prepared during the SIR.

Form 6 is typically used to add new names to the voter list, while the issue raised pertains to those who are already voters but need to change their address. The bench scrutinized the pre-filled enumeration form used during the SIR process, which requires voters to declare they still reside at the address listed in the current voter list. This could create problems for those who have moved.

Justice Menezes asked whether a person who has changed their residence should be forced to make a false declaration when submitting the pre-filled form. The court asserted that such voters should be allowed to use Form 8 to update their address.

The judges questioned why voters are not directly permitted to submit Form 8 instead of being asked to file the pre-filled enumeration form. They stated that it is unreasonable to expect someone who no longer resides at the address listed to certify that they still live there.

According to the court’s comments, citizens should not be compelled to undergo a process that forces them to make false declarations in order to maintain their voting rights or update their information on the voter list.

The primary concern during the Goa bench’s hearing was how to protect the rights of existing voters who have changed their addresses or whose names do not appear in the new draft voter list. The court emphasized that the current voter list cannot be disregarded until the new list is finalized, and practical options must be available for registered voters to make necessary updates. Additionally, the bench questioned why voters changing their addresses must declare something that does not reflect their actual living situation instead of being allowed to use Form 8.