Back
Declines to Petitioners Against ECI, Cites SC Restraint Order
The on Monday refused to grant any to petitioners challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, holding that the had already restrained all high courts from entertaining on the issue. A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna declined an to direct the ECI to refrain from deleting voters’ names, stating it would observe and await the apex court’s decision.
“There are restraining orders already… No purpose will be served by a . Let the hear the matter first and we will consider it later,” the Chief Justice remarked, effectively adjourning the petition for four weeks. The bench’s stance underscores the tension between the need to maintain electoral integrity through roll revisions and the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters—a tension that has been playing out in multiple forums across the state.
High Court Defers to ’s Restraining Order
The petitioners, Youth President Sagar Ramesh Gawai and Rafique Ilahi Khan, represented by and , had sought an interim direction to maintain the on the existing electoral rolls for three months. They also urged the court to restrict the distribution of the revised rolls and to order that no names be deleted until the petition was finally heard.
The court, however, was clear in its refusal. “We are not going to pass any such orders. We will follow ,” the bench said, referring to the ’s directive that barred high courts from entertaining challenges to the validity or process of the SIR. The petitioners did not seek to halt the SIR exercise itself but rather demanded transparency in its methodology, disclosure of the underlying orders and reasons, and safeguards against wrongful exclusion. They contended that the ECI’s limited electoral assessment could not conclusively determine citizenship, and that any doubt on citizenship must be referred to the competent authority under the .
Goa Bench Questions ECI’s Mandatory Enumeration Form
While the Bombay bench deferred to the , a separate division bench of the at Goa—comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar—took a more proactive stance, orally questioning the ECI’s insistence on a mandatory pre-filled enumeration form for voters seeking to change their address.
The Goa bench was hearing a petition filed by the Salgaonkar family, whose names were dropped from the draft electoral roll despite having submitted Form 8 (for change of address). The ECI argued that under SIR guidelines, voters must submit the enumeration form along with Form 8; failing which, they must file Form 6 (new inclusion). The bench strongly objected, pointing out that the enumeration form includes a declaration that the voter continues to reside at the address in the existing list.
“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address, you just cannot tell that person that your name isn’t included in the draft roll and now you will have to fill in Form 6. Your enumeration form basically has a declaration that a person continues to live in the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider: if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration?” Justice Menezes observed.
The bench further noted that provides for objections and that a citizen could directly submit Form 8 without being forced to use the enumeration form. The judges reminded the ECI of the ’s observations that the Commission is obligated to ensure all Indian citizens are included in the final voter list. “Read the judgment, it says ECI has an obligation to ensure that all Indian citizens are on the list… If citizens are excluded, what will we do with your SIR? If citizens are being removed from the list, then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process?” the bench remarked.
Key Concerns Raised by Petitioners
The petition before the Bombay bench highlighted that nearly 2.10 crore voters could face exclusion under categories such as Absent, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD), and those marked “Uncollectable Enumeration Form”. Petitioners alleged that such voters could be excluded without mandatory statutory notices, an opportunity of hearing, or reasoned orders—a practice that could violate .
The petitioners also alleged that although the ECI’s Maharashtra instructions do not permit collection of documents during enumeration, Booth Level Officers have been asking citizens to furnish “supporting documents” while receiving Enumeration Forms. This, they argued, goes beyond the scope of the SIR and may lead to arbitrary deletions.
The limited relief sought includes: disclosure of the order and recorded reasons under which the SIR is being undertaken in Maharashtra; transparency regarding its methodology and legal basis; multilingual instructions; equal access to physical and digital verification mechanisms; and safeguards to ensure eligible voters are not wrongly excluded. The petitioners explicitly clarified that they do not seek to stop the SIR exercise.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Revision with
The SIR process is designed to clean electoral rolls by removing ineligible entries and adding eligible voters. However, the manner of implementation has raised serious concerns. The ECI’s insistence on a compulsory enumeration form—which effectively requires a voter to declare they still reside at a previous address—creates a Catch-22 for those who have moved. If they submit the form, they make a false declaration; if they do not, they risk being removed from the roll altogether.
The , provides a clear mechanism for address changes through Form 8, and the High Court’s observation that the ECI cannot compel citizens to make false declarations is significant. The Goa bench’s remarks hint that the mandatory enumeration form may lack a statutory basis, which could form the foundation for future legal challenges.
Moreover, the ’s restraining order against high courts indicates an intent to centralize adjudication of SIR-related disputes. This could streamline the process but also risks leaving individual grievances unaddressed in the interim, especially as the final electoral roll is scheduled for publication on .
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Proceedings
For legal professionals, this judgment reinforces the principle of and the binding nature of directives. Any challenge to the SIR process must now be taken directly to the or await its guidance. Lawyers representing affected voters should be aware that from high courts is unlikely while the apex court is seized of the matter.
The Goa bench’s hearing is scheduled to continue on Tuesday, , and its observations may influence the ECI to reconsider its forms and procedures. The Bombay bench has adjourned the matter for four weeks, indicating it will revisit the petition after the ’s next hearing.
In the interim, the ECI faces mounting pressure to balance the need for accurate electoral rolls with the fundamental right of every citizen to vote. The courts have sent a clear message: voter inclusion is paramount, and any revision process that systematically excludes eligible voters without will be scrutinized strictly.
Conclusion
The ’s refusal to grant in the SIR matter reflects both respect for the ’s authority and a recognition of the complexities involved in electoral roll revision. While the court declined to intervene immediately, the sharp observations from the Goa bench suggest that the ECI’s methodology—particularly the mandatory enumeration form—may not survive judicial scrutiny. As the final roll deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the to provide definitive guidance on the legality of the SIR exercise and the safeguards needed to protect voter rights.
