The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday (October 1) sought to know from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as to why Form 8 applications meant for changing the address in the Voter ID were being rejected by its automated software system, during the ongoing process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.
A division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar has been hearing the petitions filed by one Salgaonkar family, which has claimed that their names have been dropped from the draft electoral roll, despite they filing a Form 8 (for changing address).
The ECI Counsel Gaurish Agni explained it to the judges, that as per the system, a voter, who no longer lives at an address, which is mentioned in the previous electoral roll, while undergoing the SIR process, has to first submit a pre-filled enumeration form provided by the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and to get their change recorded, they must also furnish their Form 8.
However, in the present case of the Salgoankar family, Agni explained that, firstly they did not inform the ECI for eight long years that they have changed their residence, and it is only after the BLO cross-checked with locals, that it was learnt that they have shifted to a new address. The counsel added that the family did not submit the pre-filled enumeration forms and only came with their Form 8 at least two days before the deadline of submitting the enumeration forms.
Agni stated that the family did not submit the enumeration forms but only insisted on submitting the Form 8, which was disallowed by the authorities as it was contrary to the guidelines of the ECI. He said that because the family did not submit the enumeration forms, their names were dropped from the draft electoral roll. He said that the petitioners were made aware of their remedy to file a Form 6 with their renewed address for inclusion in the voters' list during the period of 'objections' however, the family refused to take recourse to the same and petitioned the First Authority, which rejected their plea and then they moved the Appellate Authority, which too denied them any relief.
The bench however, noted, that while the ECI system successfully identified voters, who have changed their address and deleted their names from the rolls, the system appeared to be failing to enumerate shifted voters. The judges further noted that the system directly rejected the Form 8 applications without granting any remedy to the applicants.
To this, Agni clarified that the system either accepts the Form 8, provided it is submitted along with a pre-filled enumeration form, so that the data has the name of the concerned voter.
"But if there is no enumeration form, which would mean the database does not have that particular voter's details, and thus if the said voter fills in the Form 8, the same will be rejected automatically. As there are only two options, either accept or reject... No voter is left remediless in this process... The petitioners are at fault of not informing the ECI for eight long years about the fact that they have changed their address to some other ward, though in the same constituency," the counsel explained.
The judges, however, observed that there must be some mechanism instead of directly rejecting the Form 8 applications and reminded the ECI that its ultimate goal of maintaining an inclusive voter roll might be defeated if this continued.
The bench, which has been hearing the matter from Monday (September 28) has now adjourned the matter for further hearing till October 5.