The Bombay High Court has taken up a petition that challenges the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Goa after six members of a single family from the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency discovered that their names had vanished from the official voter register.
Background of the petition
The aggrieved relatives filed a Form 8 with the Election Commission to notify a change of address. Instead of updating their entries, the Commission’s automated SIR process struck their names off the list.
Judicial scrutiny
Intervention by the bench
A division bench led by Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar summoned the Election Commission for a detailed explanation. The judges anchored their inquiry in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, stressing that any administrative action must comply with the law.
The bench queried how voters could be deleted without a hearing, flagging a clear breach of procedural safeguards mandated by legislation.
Technical justification challenged
Representing the Commission, advocate Gaurish Agni told the court that the software used for the SIR could not process Form 8 applications, leaving the Commission unable to act on the family’s request within the prescribed period.
The High Court rebuked this reliance on a software limitation, warning that no technology, however advanced, should override the legal framework governing electoral registration.
“A system’s deficiency cannot become a justification for denying a citizen’s right to vote,” the bench observed.
Software versus statutory law
The judges emphasized that the Electoral Registration Officer must retain the authority to make lawful adjustments, even when the underlying system lacks a specific feature. Allowing an external mechanism to decide a voter’s eligibility, they argued, erodes the very purpose of the electoral process.
Technology, the court noted, should enable citizens’ rights, not become a barrier that excludes eligible voters.
Broader ramifications
Although only six names are currently in dispute, the bench warned that similar software‑driven exclusions could be occurring elsewhere, affecting voters who have not yet approached the judiciary.
This observation comes amid a wave of petitions challenging the SIR’s implementation, alleging procedural lapses and demanding stronger safeguards against wrongful disenfranchisement.
Next steps
The Election Commission has been directed to submit a comprehensive response outlining the legal basis for the deletions and to indicate how it will remedy any procedural defects identified by the court.
Stakeholders across the political spectrum are watching closely, as the outcome could reshape the way electoral rolls are revised nationwide, ensuring that technology serves the law—not the other way around.
