Bombay High Court raises tough questions regarding the Election Commission’s SIR process

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court has made strong remarks against the Election Commission regarding the process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll. The Court observed that the procedure being followed during the SIR suggests that laws and rules have been sidelined for the time being, and operations are being driven by software instead. The Court stated that this is unacceptable.

A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar was hearing a case involving six members of a family from Santa Cruz whose names were removed from the electoral roll during the SIR. The family had also submitted ‘Form 8’ to update their address from one part of the assembly constituency to another; despite this, their names were deleted from the voter list.

According to reports, during the hearing, the High Court asked the Election Commission under which law a person’s name could be removed from the electoral roll without granting them an opportunity to be heard. The Court stated that if a person’s name is to be deleted, they must first be given a chance to present their side. The Court also directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to remain present in court. Counsel Gaurish Agni, appearing for the Election Commission, informed the Court that the system did not permit the processing of ‘Form 8’ during the SIR, which resulted in the deletion of the names of the individuals concerned.

In response, the High Court asserted that the law must prevail in all situations. The Court remarked that the ERO should have the capability to access the software, make modifications, or delete a name in accordance with their orders. The Court stated that an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) cannot remain helpless by relying on instructions from third parties or software. The Court clearly emphasized that the law must prevail over technology. It observed that the system should serve the voter, and ultimately, it is the Election Commission’s responsibility to ensure no voter is left off the electoral roll.

Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that Form 8 applications could not be processed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) period; hence, no changes were made. The Court remarked that this effectively meant the law and rules were suspended for a certain period. It observed that one cannot simply initiate a completely different process and claim that existing laws and rules do not apply, opting instead to operate under a separate, ad-hoc system.

The Court expressed serious concern regarding this process and its impact. It questioned how many other voters might be facing similar difficulties without having approached the Court, noting that six voters had already been affected in this instance.

The Election Commission stated that the names of certain voters—specifically those who had filled out Form 6—were re-included in the electoral roll. It was further submitted that the family in question had neither submitted the enumeration form nor shown a willingness to fill out Form 6.

In response, the Court observed that asking the concerned individuals to fill out Form 6 was inappropriate when the system itself did not permit processing via Form 8. The Court identified this as the root of the problem.

The High Court stated that the SIR process cannot be viewed in isolation. According to the Court, it must align with Rule 13 and Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act. The Court noted that while any number of revisions could be carried out, a new voter—or a voter shifting from one ward or section to another—retains the statutory right to apply using Forms 6, 7, or 8.

The Court affirmed that there is no legal bar against this. Even while the process of revising the electoral roll is underway, it cannot override these legal provisions. Counsel for the Election Commission stated that the Commission had no intention of deliberately removing anyone’s name. In response, the Court clearly stated, “You cannot remove a person from the electoral roll without hearing them out. That is the law, as we understand it.”

Report – Abhijit Tushar Bhatt (Political Editor)