Object is to get citizens to vote, says HC; questions EC on rejecting Form 8 amid SIR

PANAJI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday said the object of the Representation of the People Act and Election Commission of India, which cannot be "overridden", is to ensure that votes are cast by citizens.

However, what the ECI has done is not in consonance with its object, the Goa bench of the HC, comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S Jamsandekar, said while hearing a writ petition filed by six members of a family whose names were deleted from the voters' list.

Petitioners Paresh Salgaonkar and his kin told the court they had moved to a new house in the same Santa Cruz assembly constituency and were instructed by the Booth Level Officer to submit Form 8 for a change of address.

At the time of processing, errors showed up since no record of their Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) was found, and as such, their Form 8 was rejected, the petitioners told court.

While hearing the arguments of advocate Gaurish Agni on behalf of ECI, the division bench said rejecting Form 8 means "the roll will not have that person's name", adding "we have reservations about that".

"Form 8 could be kept until you complete the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) and then you deal with all the Form 8s. But if you reject Form 8 because you did not come with the right form, we have reservations about that," the bench observed and asked if the ECI was empowered to reject it.

Agni told the bench that ECI had the power, adding that if anybody is left out during SIR, only Form 6 would be considered.

"If any party goes back to the situation where there is no SIR, you submit Form 8 and we will consider it," Agni told HC.

Agni clarified that the forms of the petitioners were rejected because they did not fill it during the enumeration period.

"The basis of SIR is the enumeration form," he said.

The bench, however, observed that the Election Commission's endeavour is to have as many eligible voters on the roll as possible.

"Why should it reject Form 8, if it comes during that period (SIR), and that is what we are trying to understand. Your guidelines are perfectly fine, but why do you have to reject Form 8? You can keep it pending," the bench said.

"Because what happens is that if you don't keep it pending, the person escapes from the roll. He will be neither here, nor there. You finish your roll and deal with all the Form 8s. Because that is the best information for you to understand that people have shifted," the court observed.

The bench said the larger object of the Representation of the People Act and the ECI is to ensure that votes are cast by citizens.

"For that purpose, they can adopt any measures. Whatever measures that you adopt, the object has to be achieved. In that object, here and there, there may be aberrations. But the object cannot be overridden," the bench asserted.

The High Court observed that what the ECI had done was not in consonance with its object.

"How will you succeed in the object? If you have to achieve an object of not missing out a voter, where a voter comes forward to you with a wrong form, are you supposed to reject it or keep it in abeyance? Finalise your roll and deal with these forms. You accept that he is being missed. You accept that many people may have been missed," the bench further said.

Agni, however, asked if it wasn't the voter's duty to come before SIR and intimate the ECI that he had shifted.

"He came at a wrong stage with a wrong form. That voter can even today come with Form 6 and it would be considered. Even today, after the SIR, he can come with Form 6 to the Commission and say he has shifted to this new ward," Agni said while questioning the petitioner's conduct.

In response, the bench said, "The petitioner will also ask why this SIR after 24 years, why not in between because the number could have been controllable. This could never happen if this exercise is done continuously."

The bench, however, said it was not about a blame game.

"You have access to death and birth certificates. If you are updating regularly, those (who have died) at least will go. The day a person is 18 years old, you must consider it (as voter), without any applications. The endeavour ultimately is to bring up a roll that reflects actually who are the voters," the bench said.

The HC has fixed the next hearing in the case for October 5.