Daijiworld Media Network - Panaji

Panaji, Nov 6: In a setback to the Election Commission (EC), the Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the restoration of six voters from Goa's St Cruz constituency whose names were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court also refused to stay its order to allow the poll panel to approach the Supreme Court.

The High Court directed the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to restore the names of the six family members to the electoral rolls within 10 days, observing that the right to vote cannot be delayed pending an appeal.

“Removal of a name of an elector from the revised roll, especially when they have already submitted Form 8 for shifting of residence within the same constituency and that, too, without affording them any hearing, would amount to denial of the citizen’s right to vote,” a division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar said in its order.

Soon after the direction was issued, counsel appearing for the Election Commission sought a two-week stay to enable the poll body to approach the Supreme Court.

“How can there be a stay when we are giving a direction to include the name of a voter?” the bench orally questioned.

“We decline to stay the directions given in this order since they pertain to the inclusion of the names of the petitioners as voters in the voting list. Request is rejected,” the High Court stated in its order.

The bench also rejected the EC's request to keep the matter in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides pending petitions challenging the SIR process in various states. It observed that such a delay “would affect the petitioner’s valuable right to be included in the electoral roll”.

The High Court clarified that the petitioners had not challenged the SIR process or the guidelines issued under it and had proceeded on the basis that the revision exercise had been completed in Goa.

“The only challenge in this petition is to the order of the ERO rejecting the petitioner’s Form 8 and further challenge to the first appellate and second appellate orders refusing to include the petitioner’s name in the electoral roll for Part 25 of St Cruz constituency,” the court said.

Paresh Salgaonkar and his family had shifted their residence from Part 29 to Part 25 within the St Cruz constituency and had correctly submitted Form 8 to update their address.

The court observed that the authorities could not have insisted that they submit Form 6, as they were not new voters. Nor could they have been asked to submit the pre-filled enumeration form, since they had already shifted their residence and doing so would have amounted to making a false declaration.

The bench also questioned the authorities' decision to freeze the system for accepting Form 8 applications during the period provided for objections to the draft electoral roll.

“We also fail to understand how during SIR, even assuming that the guidelines issued are to an extent to be followed by the EROs, there could be an insistence and freezing of the system, during the period kept for objections to the draft roll, that Form 8 correctly filled by the petitioners, would not be entertained,” the High Court observed.