Bombay High Court questions ECI on automated rejection of voter form 8 during SIR

The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday expressed concern about the manner in which Election Commission of India's (ECI) automated software system rejects form 8 applications filed by electors to report a change of address [Paresh Salgaonkar & Ors v. State of Goa & Ors.].Under the automated system, form 8 applications are rejected if the applicant fails to submit a pre-filled enumeration form at their previous residence.The Court remarked that while the ECI’s protocol successfully purges non-resident entries, it fails to achieve its corresponding goal of enumerating shifted voters.The Bench also noted that rejection orders cited "system glitches," indicating the portal gave officers no choice but to reject form 8 filings.The Court also took exception to the ECI invoking public perception and confidence in the electoral exercise to support the commission's revision framework. The Bench rebuked the ECI and made it clear that court proceedings are governed strictly by legal provisions rather than external opinion and public sentiment should not be a ground to bypass the law.“What the public thinks about all of us is immaterial. We are dealing here in a court,” the judge said. .The division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar was hearing a plea filed by a family of five members in Goa challenging deletion of their names from the electoral rolls and the rejection of their form 8 applications following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls..The legal controversy centers on whether administrative guidelines issued by the ECI during the SIR exercise can effectively suspend or alter statutory mechanics governed by the Representation of the People Act and Rules 13 and 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.Under the ECI's SIR framework, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) carry out house-to-house enumeration using pre-filled forms derived from previous voter databases. If an elector has relocated and does not submit an enumeration form at their old address, their name is temporarily omitted from the draft electoral roll.When such shifted citizens file form 8 to transfer their registration, ECI’s portal and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) reject the application. The ECI contends that form 8 presupposes an active entry on the draft roll at the former address. Once omitted, the ECI insists, the voter must instead file form 6 meant for fresh inclusions during the claims and objections period..The bench observed that this has created a requirement for a relocated voter to sign a pre-filled enumeration form for their former residence and forces them into making a false declaration.ECI counsel Gauresh Agni submitted that the commission possesses the authority to reject form 8 if a voter's name is missing from the draft roll. "If the enumeration form is not there, form 8 has to be rejected. So there was only an option of either accepting any form or rejecting. The power of acceptance includes the power of rejection also," Agni argued. The Bench questioned whether such automatic rejections defeat the ultimate objective of maintaining an inclusive voter roll."Are you supposed to reject it, or do you just keep it in abeyance?" the Bench asked. "Complete, finalize your roll, then take all these applications, because you're going to miss voters otherwise," the Bench further said..The Bench also suggested that routine updations via birth and death registries would avoid long gaps between revisions. “The endeavour ultimately is to bring up a roll that reflects actually who are the voters,” the bench said. .The endeavour ultimately is to bring up a roll that reflects actually who are the voters.Bombay High Court.Agni cited Supreme Court precedents upholding past SIR drives in Bihar, arguing that Article 324 grants the ECI broad supervisory powers to streamline procedure. He added that voters who slept on their obligation to inform the ECI of address changes for years cannot demand processing via form 8 when form 6 remains available. “I do not understand why the Court is not questioning the petitioner's conduct, that for 8 years he does not inform the Commission,” Agni argued. .However, the Court asked ECI to reconcile. “There'll be hundreds and thousands of such people who will not be ready to sign this enumeration form because they are not living there!” the judge said. .The arguments will continue on October 5, Monday.