PANAJI: The Bombay high court Wednesday came down heavily on the Election Commission and said it was “perturbed” by the SIR process followed by the panel.Questioning EC regarding the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, the division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar said: “SIR effectively by whatever instructions, has suspended the full system. It suspends Section 22, Rule 21 A and all those rules and says forget about all the laws. Now you follow the software. It cannot be like this. What is the explanation for this?”The court was hearing a case after six members of a family from Santa Cruz approached HC after their names were deleted from the rolls during the SIR.The names were deleted despite them filling Form 8 for change of address from one part of the constituency to another.“Show us from the Act where it empowers you to delete without hearing. If you are planning to remove someone’s name, you have to give the person an opportunity of hearing first,” the bench said.It also directed the electoral registration officer (ERO) concerned to be present in the court.Advocate Gaurish Agni, representing EC, told HC that the system did not permit processing of Form 8 during SIR, as a result of which their names were deleted.“At all points of time, as we understand, the law should work. The ERO must have the key to the software, call it a code, call it whatever key to software to open it or enter or delete pursuant to his order, with him. It cannot be with a third person,” the court said, pointing out that the ERO was helpless and dependent on the commands ERONET gave.The bench said the Act must be followed rather than the technology. “It has to work for the elector. Ultimately it is the role of the Election Commission to see that no voter is left out,” the bench said.Agni said during the SIR period, Form 8 could not be processed and no changes were effected.The court said this amounted to keeping the Act and the Rules in abeyance. “Then you’re suspending the Act and the Rules also by starting some completely alien procedure… the effect is you’re temporarily saying we’re giving a go by to Rules and Acts… they don’t exist. We will do our own thing. We are very perturbed by this and the effect of this. Here are six voters. We are wondering how many more there are who have not come to court,” the bench said.Agni said some voters whose names were deleted were included after they filled Form 6 and he pointed out that the family hadn’t submitted enumeration forms and refused to fill Form 6.“You have no business asking them to fill Form 6 because the system didn’t allow you to do it on Form 8. That was the problem,” the bench said.“SIR, first of all, doesn’t fit as a standalone proceeding. SIR has to fit basically under Rule 13 read with Section 22. You can conduct as many revisions as you want but even if there’s no revision being conducted, any elector new or who is moving from one ward or part to another can under Form 6, 7, 8 present it at any time. There are no fetters under the Act. All we are saying is when revision comes, it cannot override these provisions,” the bench said. Agni said EC had no intention to delete anybody on purpose.“You cannot delete anybody without hearing that person. That’s the law as we understood it,” the bench said.
