The Bombay High Court has entertained a petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Goa. Six individuals belonging to the same household in the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency discovered that their names were inexplicably missing from the official voter register.
The aggrieved family members had filed Form 8 with the Election Commission to report a change of address. Rather than updating their entries, the commission’s automated SIR process removed them altogether.
Judicial intervention
A division bench led by Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar summoned the Election Commission for a detailed explanation. Relying on the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, the judges underscored that any administrative action must be anchored in law.
The court asked how voters could be struck off without being given a hearing – a direct violation of the procedural protections embedded in the statutes.
Technical arguments under the microscope
Representing the commission, advocate Gaurish Agni told the bench that the software used for the SIR lacked a provision for processing Form 8 applications, leaving the commission unable to act on the family’s request within the prescribed period.
The High Court rebuked this reliance on a technical flaw, warning that no piece of software, however advanced, may override the legal framework governing electoral registration.
Why software cannot dictate law
The judges emphasized that the Electoral Registration Officer must retain the power to make lawful adjustments, even if the underlying system does not support a particular function. Allowing an external mechanism to decide a citizen’s voting eligibility, they argued, would erode the very foundation of the democratic process.
Technology, the court observed, should facilitate citizens’ rights, not become a barrier that disenfranchises eligible voters.
Potential wider implications
Although the present dispute involves only six names, the bench cautioned that similar software‑driven exclusions could be happening elsewhere, affecting voters who have not yet approached the courts.
This warning arrives amid a growing wave of petitions contesting the SIR’s execution, alleging procedural lapses and calling for tighter safeguards against wrongful disenfranchisement.
What follows
The Election Commission has been ordered to submit a comprehensive response that explains the legal basis for the deletions and outlines steps to remedy any procedural defects identified by the court.
Political stakeholders across the spectrum are watching closely, as the outcome may reshape the manner in which electoral rolls are revised nationwide, ensuring that technology serves the law—not the other way around.
