Bulk Objections to Electoral Rolls Without Form 7 Not Maintainable; Procedural Adherence Mandatory: Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) - 2025-05-08

Bombay High Court Dismisses MLA's Plea on Duplicate Voters, Upholds ECI's Procedural Mandate

Aurangabad, Maharashtra: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and S. G. Chapalgaonkar , JJ. , on October 18, 2024, dismissed a writ petition filed by Chandrakant Nimba Patil , a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Muktainagar Constituency, seeking directions to election authorities to identify, verify, and remove alleged duplicate voter names from the electoral rolls. The Court held that objections to electoral rolls must adhere to the prescribed procedures, including filing individual objections in Form 7, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to bypass these statutory requirements.

Case Overview

The petitioner, Chandrakant Patil, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging approximately 43,000 duplicate voter entries in the Muktainagar Assembly Constituency. He had made multiple representations to the State Election Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer (Maharashtra), the District Electoral Officer (Jalgaon), and the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), Muktainagar , urging them to take action. The petitioner contended that these duplications could lead to bogus voting and undermine the fairness of the upcoming State Legislative Assembly elections scheduled for late 2024.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions (Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh ): * Argued that a significant number of voters were registered multiple times, constituting a "big scam." * Insisted that the election authorities have a bounden duty to ensure free and fair elections and should act on the information provided, even if not in the prescribed individual forms. * Cited Rules 10 to 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (Electors Rules), and various Supreme Court judgments, including Shyamdeo Prasad Singh Vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav , to emphasize the ERO's duty to consider objections and the importance of an accurate electoral roll. * Contended that preparation of electoral rolls is not part of the "election" under Article 329(b), allowing for judicial intervention.

Respondents' Contentions (Represented by Mr. A. B. Kadethankar for State Election Commission and Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal for other Election Authorities): * Maintained that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has a robust mechanism for fair elections. * Argued that Rule 13(2) of the Electors Rules mandates that objections to the inclusion of a name must be in Form 7 and preferred by a person whose name is already on that roll. * Highlighted Rule 17, which states that claims or objections not lodged in the specified form and manner "shall be rejected." * Pointed to the ECI's Handbook for Returning Officer (2023), specifically Instruction 11.3.2(ii), which prohibits entertaining bulk applications and insists on individual forms, with limited exceptions. * Stated that the petitioner was informed of these requirements and that his bulk representation without individual Form 7s could not be processed. They also cited Instruction 1.7.1 which states "no suo moto deletion shall be done in an election year" after final publication of rolls, except on Form 7 or Form 8. * Asserted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued when statutory authorities are adhering to established rules and procedures.

Court's Reasoning and Application of Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously examined the arguments and the relevant legal provisions. The bench acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding duplicate entries but underscored the necessity of procedural compliance.

Emphasis on Procedural Mandate: The Court found merit in the respondents' argument that the prescribed procedure for raising objections must be followed. It observed: > "Rule 13(2) of the Electors Rules specifically deals with deletion of name from the existing roll and it says that every objection for such action shall be in Form 7... This rule will have to be read along with Rule 17 of the Electors Rules which prescribes that any claim or objection which is not lodged in the form and manner specified, then it shall be rejected by registration officer. Here, admittedly, objection raised by the petitioner was in bulk or in respect of bulk entries and not annexed with Form 7."

Binding Nature of ECI's Handbook: The Court affirmed the binding nature of the ECI's Handbook for Returning Officers, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari . Instruction 11.3.2(ii) of the handbook, which disallows bulk applications, was deemed a valid guideline. The Court stated: > "When these instructions are clear and insisting that each objection should be in Form 7, then if such procedure is not adhered to, no directions can be given to the Election Commission. Certainly, when the statutory authority has insisted for adherence of procedure/instructions, then writ of mandamus cannot be issued by taking note of the practical difficulty of the objector."

Suo Moto Powers and Alternative Remedy: While Rule 21A of the Electors Rules allows an ERO to take suo moto action to delete names, the Court noted the proviso requiring an opportunity for the affected person to be heard. Furthermore, ECI instructions (1.7.1) restrict suo moto deletions in an election year after the final publication of rolls.

The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy: > "One more fact to be noted from the said communication dated 23.09.2024 that it was specifically stated to the petitioner that he has a right to file appeal against the said decision under Rule 23 of the Electors Rules. Petitioner appears to have not approached the appellate authority, but directly came to this Court... When a specific provision has been made for appeal, then before knocking the doors of the constitutional Court, the said remedy which is a statutory remedy should be exhausted."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that since the election authorities were following the statutory rules and binding instructions, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel them to act on the petitioner's bulk representation.

The Court, however, acknowledged the substance in the petitioner's allegations regarding duplicate voter ID cards: > "But before we part, we will have to observe that certainly there is substance in what the petitioner is saying from the list that has been given by him. Some persons have obtained two or more election cards i.e. ID cards which is certainly offensive... We hope and trust that at some point of time, that may be before the next elections, the task would be undertaken by the authorities."

This judgment reiterates the critical importance of adhering to prescribed electoral procedures. While the goal of a clean and accurate electoral roll is paramount, the means to achieve it are governed by statutory rules and ECI guidelines, which cannot be easily bypassed, even when faced with large-scale alleged discrepancies. The ruling also underscores the principle of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before seeking constitutional remedies.