The Bombay high court has questioned the Election Commission’s process for handling voters who shifted residence within Goa, asking whether people should submit a “false declaration” during the special intensive revision (SIR) when they no longer live at the address printed on their pre-filled forms.
The issue arose during a hearing on a petition filed by a family of six from the Santa Cruz constituency. Their names were deleted from the electoral rolls after they shifted residence within the same constituency. The family had submitted Form 8, which is used to report a change of residence, instead of filing the pre-filled enumeration forms or applying as new voters through Form 6.
A two-judge bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar said the family’s position appeared consistent with the electoral rules. If the members no longer lived at the address shown on the enumeration forms, submitting those forms could amount to a false declaration, the court observed. The bench said Form 8 was the “normal, correct and genuine way” for people to report a change of residence and questioned why the Election Commission would reject it.
The Election Commission’s counsel, Gaurish Agni, told the court that the Supreme Court had upheld the SIR and that the family had not filled or submitted the enumeration forms during the exercise. He said they were asked to complete Form 6 for registration as new voters but had refused to do so.
The court questioned how the commission intended to account for voters who had moved since the previous SIR in 2002. It also asked whether election officers had a mechanism to identify people who had shifted to a particular residence from another location.
Agni said such changes could not be processed during the enumeration period. He told the bench that the Election Commission prepared lists of people who had shifted, died or otherwise become ineligible, and displayed those lists on notice boards at different levels. He maintained that Form 8 was meant for ordinary changes of residence and did not apply during the SIR period.
The court, however, said the guidelines for implementing the revision could not override the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It questioned the decision to reject Form 8 applications instead of keeping them pending until the claims and objections stage. The bench said retaining the applications would preserve information about voters who had shifted and allow the commission to process them later.
The judges also referred to the orders rejecting the family’s Form 8 applications, which relied on what the electoral officers described as a “glitch in the system”. The court said the issue could affect “hundreds and thousands” of voters who were not prepared to sign forms stating that they still lived at an old address.
The Election Commission’s counsel also said that the public perception created by the proceedings suggested that the commission was deleting voters’ names, which he said was incorrect. The court asked him not to become preoccupied with allegations and to focus on the matter before it.
The hearing has placed the treatment of address changes during the SIR at the centre of the case. The court’s questions focus on whether electoral procedures can leave eligible voters off the rolls when the prescribed mechanism for reporting a move is rejected during the revision process.