Back
Flags Catch-22 for Voters in Goa SIR Over Rejected Applications
The has sharply questioned the ’s procedure during the ongoing of electoral rolls, describing the predicament faced by voters who have changed residences as a “complete .” A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar heard a batch of petitions, including one from Paresh Salgaoncar and five family members, whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls after their applications for change of address were rejected. The court expressed deep concern that the SIR process, ostensibly designed to identify illegal immigrants, is instead resulting in the exclusion of eligible citizens from the voters’ list, thereby undermining the constitutional mandate to ensure every citizen’s right to vote.
The Catch-22: vs. Dilemma
At the heart of the controversy is a procedural deadlock. When a voter shifts residence within the same constituency, they are required to submit to update their address in the electoral roll. However, during the SIR, booth-level officers prepare fresh . Voters who fail to return these are not included in the . Consequently, when they later submit , election officials reject the application on the ground that the voter no longer has an entry in the to transfer. The only alternative offered is to file — a form meant for fresh enrolment of new voters — which requires a declaration that the applicant is not already registered elsewhere. The court noted that this forced choice is untenable.
“If a gentleman comes and says ‘I have shifted, I am giving you ’. You cannot tell him ‘I will not hear you’… because the roll that is being referred to in Rule 21 is the , not the ,” the bench observed. “Look at this complete before him. If he gives , it is a . He gives … you say ‘I cannot accept it and you must give the enumeration’. He says ‘I don’t want to give the enumeration’. But Rule 21 says you have to hear him before removing his name… not from the draft, from the original roll.”
The court underscored that requiring a voter to sign a declaration that they are not enrolled elsewhere, when they are indeed enrolled at their old address, exposes them to potential prosecution for making a . “Why will he sign this? This is a … Why should he give a ? No voter should sign this,” the bench stressed.
ECI’s Defense and the Court’s Rebuttal
The , represented by , argued that the SIR under , involves preparing electoral rolls afresh. “Whoever is not given the enumeration form, the name has to go off the , and if you are not in the , there is no entry which can be transferred to another place,” Agni submitted. The ECI also maintained that public notices were displayed because authorities may not have updated information about voters who had moved. The poll body insisted that the SIR was aimed at identifying illegal immigrants and ensuring the accuracy of rolls.
The bench, however, questioned the very purpose of the SIR if it leads to the removal of legitimate citizens. “If citizens are excluded, what will we do with SIR? If citizens are being removed from the list, then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process?” the court asked. It drew a distinction between the SIR’s stated objective of verifying citizenship and the actual effect of deleting voters based on procedural non-compliance. “The entire SIR procedure was on the basis that it had to find out whether an elector is actually an Indian citizen or not. The basis of the SIR was not to see whether the voter is there or not. It is to find out whether he is an Indian citizen or not,” the court noted.
The bench further questioned whether directing voters to submit or would subserve the objective of identifying illegal immigrants. Referring to the ’s judgment on the Bihar SIR, the court observed that the judgment did not prescribe the use of for this purpose. “Law is either by the legislature or, if it is delegated, or a rule-making power,” it said, hinting that the ECI’s approach may lack statutory backing.
Constitutional Implications and the Right to Vote
The court’s remarks highlight the tension between administrative efficiency in electoral roll revision and the . of the Constitution guarantees the right to vote to every citizen, subject to certain disqualifications. The Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules provide detailed procedures for inclusion, deletion, and modification of entries. , mandates a hearing before removal of a name from the . The bench emphasized that the , not the , must be the reference point for such procedural safeguards.
The court also flagged the constitutional duty of the ECI under to ensure that all eligible citizens are enrolled. “If citizens are excluded, what will we do with SIR?” the bench reiterated, indicating that the purpose of the revision exercise cannot be to disenfranchise . Legal experts note that the SIR, introduced to identify illegal immigrants and remove duplicate entries, must not become a tool to arbitrarily exclude citizens who have merely changed residences. The court’s insistence on adhering to Rule 21 and the underscores that procedural shortcuts cannot override substantive rights.
Impact on Electoral Processes and Future SIR Exercises
The Goa SIR has become a test case for the ECI’s nationwide efforts to cleanse electoral rolls. The ’s observations could have far-reaching implications for similar revision exercises in other states. If the court ultimately holds that the ECI cannot delete names from the without individual notice and a hearing, it may force the commission to revise its guidelines and training for booth-level officers. The court also raised concerns about the automated rejection of applications in the ERONET system, which left the petitioners with no option but to seek restoration through .
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of challenging procedural defects in electoral roll revisions. The principle that a voter should not be forced to make a to remain on the rolls is a strong argument that can be invoked in writ petitions. The court’s focus on the rather than the during an ongoing SIR provides a valuable distinction for future litigation.
Conclusion
The ’s intervention in the Goa SIR matter brings to the forefront a critical deficiency in the ECI’s current practices. By highlighting the faced by voters who have shifted residences, the court has reminded the election watchdog that administrative convenience cannot override fundamental rights. The bench has made it clear that the SIR’s purpose is to verify citizenship, not to remove citizens who have merely moved houses. As the hearing continues, the legal community will closely watch whether the court directs the ECI to devise a mechanism that respects both the integrity of the rolls and the . For now, the court’s pointed questions serve as a warning: an SIR that excludes citizens is an exercise in futility.
