The Goa bench of The Bombay High Court held that removal of an elector’s name from the roll without a hearing denies the citizen the right to vote.
The Court added that an ERO must make an endeavour to give a voter who does not reside in the constituency an opportunity to show cause why the action proposed should not be taken. The Bench delivered the judgment on a petition by six members of the Salgaonkar family that an Electoral Registration Officer must decide a Form 8 application while Special Intensive Revision is underway. The Bench also ordered the Election Commission of India to restore the six names, and to set aside the rejection of their Form 8 applications. The Bench cited Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and said that the Rule reflects the proviso to Section 22 of the Act, which requires an ERO to give a person whose name is on the roll and is required to be deleted, an opportunity to show cause before deletion. The Court examined Sections 22 and 23 of the Act with Rules 13 and 25 of the Rules and drew a line between Form 6 and Form 8 by holding that Form 6 is for a person who seeks inclusion for the first time and requires a declaration that the name is not on any Assembly or Parliamentary roll, while Form 8 is for a voter on the roll who seeks shift of residence or correction of entries, so a voter who shifts within the constituency can file only Form 8 and cannot be directed to file Form 6 during SIR. The Bench held that a direction to file Form 6 would require the voter to declare that the name was not on a roll and that the application was for inclusion for the first time, which would conflict with the record and expose the applicant to Section 31 of the Act. It also held that removal of a name from the roll after revision, and without a hearing, when the elector has submitted Form 8 for shift of residence within that constituency, denies the right to vote. The petitioners challenged the rejection before the District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer, both of whom upheld it, and they then moved the High Court contending that rejection of Form 8 was not in accordance with the Act and the Rules and that the names had been deleted without notice or hearing.
