Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: Election officials cannot refuse to process legitimate voter applications merely because the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) software does not support the required action, the Bombay High Court at Goa has held, stressing that technical limitations cannot take precedence over electoral law.
The ruling came in a 42-page judgment delivered by a Division Bench in a case involving six members of a family from Santa Cruz, whose names were left out of the draft electoral roll despite having applied for changes in their residential details.
Setting aside the rejection of their applications, the High Court directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to verify their residence and restore their names in Part 25 of the electoral roll within 10 days.
The petitioners, led by Paresh Salgaonkar, had submitted Form 8 applications through their Booth Level Officer (BLO) on November 12, 2025. The applications were subsequently uploaded on December 8. However, when the draft electoral roll was released on December 16, the family’s names were missing.
Their applications were eventually rejected on January 21, 2026, two days after the deadline for filing claims and objections had expired.
During the proceedings, it emerged that the ERONET platform had returned the message, “no record to EPIC details was found”. The ERO’s login reportedly did not provide an option to process the applications and displayed only a rejection facility.
The Bench questioned the officer’s failure to resort to the physical applications and deal with them independently, rather than allowing the software’s limitations to determine the outcome. It found no satisfactory explanation for why the pending applications were not examined even after the claims period ended.
The court also highlighted a gap in the enumeration process concerning electors who had moved to another residence. It observed that requiring such voters to use pre-filled forms containing their former addresses could place them in a situation where they would have to submit incorrect information.
The judgment cautioned that declarations made in the prescribed enumeration form, Form 6 or Annexure D could potentially expose the applicants to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act if they contained false particulars.
Another concern identified by the Bench was the manner in which the applications had been rejected. The ERO had neither recorded adequate reasons nor issued a formal speaking order. The petitioners were also not provided an opportunity to present their case through a hearing.
On the question of the correct application procedure, the court clarified that Form 8 is meant for existing electors seeking to shift their registration following a change of residence. Such applicants cannot be treated as first-time voters and compelled to submit Form 6 for fresh enrolment.
The judgment makes it clear that technical difficulties within the ECI’s digital infrastructure cannot absolve electoral authorities of their statutory obligations. Officials must find lawful ways to process applications rather than allow software restrictions to deprive eligible voters of their place on the electoral roll.
