PANAJI: The Bombay high court Thursday questioned the Election Commission whether it expected people who had shifted residence to give a “false declaration” during the special intensive revision (SIR) when they didn’t reside at that address anymore.Hearing a petition by a family of six from Santa Cruz constituency in Goa whose names were deleted after they shifted residence within the same constituency, a two-judge bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar said the enumeration forms were pre-filled and if they submitted those forms it “will be a false declaration. That is the reason they have filled Form 8”, showing the change of residence.“EC cannot reject Form 8 because it is the normal, correct and genuine way people come forward,” the court said.
Guidelines for carrying out SIR can’t be contrary to the Rules: HC to EC
EC’s counsel Gaurish Agni said SC has upheld SIR and blamed the family for not filling and submitting the enumeration forms during SIR due to which their names had been deleted.They were asked to fill Form 6 for registration as new voters, which they refused, he said.“Here is a case during SIR where a person doesn’t live there. He’s been given an enumeration form, and he’s been told you shall file this first, otherwise we are not putting your name at all. He’s not going to file that because he’s not living there. He filled Form 8 as per Rule 13 (of Registration of Electors Rules 1960)…. Your system couldn’t process it,” the court told Agni.HC said there would be many voters who shifted since the last SIR in 2002 and asked how EC enumerates these people. HC also asked whether there was any mechanism by which EC officers can enumerate those they find living at a particular residence who had shifted there from another place.Agni said this cannot happen during the enumeration period, and EC prepares a list of people shifted, dead, etc., and pastes it on the notice boards at every level. He said Form 8 is for ordinary shifting of residence but didn’t apply during this period.The counsel said the family filled Form 8 at a time when it couldn’t have been processed and that they should have come in during the period of claims and objections by filling in Form 6 and giving details of both addresses.But the court said the guidelines for carrying out SIR cannot be contrary to the Rules.“The EC’s endeavour is to see that it has as many voters as possible who are eligible on the rolls. Why should it reject Form 8 that comes during that period? Keep it pending because what will happen if you don’t keep it pending is that the person is not on the rolls. Why reject it? Why not keep it in abeyance and then deal with all Form 8s — that’s the best information for you to understand that people have shifted. The moment you reject it, it’s not available to you anymore,” the court said.The court said both orders of the electoral officers rejecting the family’s Form 8 proceeded on the basis that there was a “glitch in the system”, which records what the system didn’t allow the officer to do.“We have to now reconcile that there will be hundreds and thousands of such people who will not be ready to sign this enumeration form because they’re not living there. So, what is their mechanism for pointing out to you that they are not living there now?” the bench asked.The EC counsel said he was “concerned about the public perception”.“We are not concerned about it. You should not be concerned about it. You argue a matter and that’s enough. What the public feels about all of us is immaterial. We are in a court,” the bench said.The counsel also told the court that the entire image given to the court is that the “commission is going on deleting names, which is not correct”. The court told him not to get bogged down by allegations.
