Panaji: Bombay High Court Monday grilled Election Commission over how Paresh Salgaonkar and his family of five were deleted from the Goa electoral rolls despite being Indian citizens and submitting Form 8 for change of address.“…the Election Commission has a constitutional obligation to ensure that only persons who are citizens are on the rolls. If by this process (special intensive revision or SIR), citizens are excluded, then what is the purpose of this mandate,” the two-judge bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar asked EC.The court told EC that the entire exercise of SIR was to find out whether the voter is an Indian citizen or not. “The basis of SIR is not to see whether the voter is present in a particular place or not, but to find out whether the voter is an Indian citizen or not. This seems to be the reason why there is an SIR,” the court said.Reminding EC of Rule 21 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the court said, “everything must be seen qua the existing roll and not draft roll, otherwise a voter has absolutely no way out of this”; the judges said, adding EC has put the voter “in a Catch-22 situation”.The court questioned EC on whether it issued notices to the family before deleting their names from the rolls.Gaurish Agni, counsel representing the Election Commission, said notices were published on notice boards at every level because the voters’ fresh details may not be available with the commission.Agni said, according to the guidelines, Form 8 could not have been processed for those whose names stood deleted from the draft rolls as they hadn’t filled in enumeration forms. He said Salgaonkar could have filled Form 6 because he’s a new voter in a new part and because the SIR treats it as though the roll is starting completely afresh.“Form 8 is an objection to the draft roll from that place. It is to correct your draft roll and include the voter’s name. Form 8 is precisely that,” the bench said, adding Form 6 is for declaring that someone’s name is missing from the place where the voter resides, and he/she should be added to the rolls.“If he gives you Form 6, it’s a false declaration. If he gives you Form 8 (for change of address), you do not accept it but ask him to give the enumeration form. There are no enumeration forms in the history of this country,” the judges said.The court asked how a person who has shifted from one part to another and who was already on the rolls could be asked to give a Form 6 declaration in the prefilled enumeration form.“The declarations are such that the voter has to declare in a prefilled form to include the person in that same place, while the person is not residing in that place. How will a person make such a declaration when he knows his name is in another place? The moment he makes this declaration, he’s open to prosecution. This is a false statement…” the bench said.“No voter is going to sign this. No voter should sign this. We are saying they should not sign this. How can he apply for inclusion in this place if he doesn’t reside there?” the court said and asked EC to submit the enumeration form and annexures to forms.The bench will continue the hearing of the matter Tuesday.
