New Delhi: The Bombay high court’s Goa bench has held that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot forgo statutory procedures for updating electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, such as forcing voters who shifted addresses to register as first-time voters or disenfranchising them altogether.It has also directed the electoral registration officer (ERO) of Goa’s Santa Cruz constituency to reinstate the names of Paresh Salgaonkar and five members of his family to the electoral roll within 10 days.The court’s November 5 ruling stems from a petition filed by Salgaonkar after he and his family were removed from the voter list for moving from one part of the same constituency to another, even after submitting form 8 – the designated application for notifying address changes. Meanwhile, the ECI argued that the family should have submitted pre-filled enumeration forms or applied through form 6, which is meant for new voters.A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar dismissed the ECI’s argument and upheld Salgaonkar and his family’s right to vote.“We allow the petition… We have rejected the contention of the ECI that the hearing in the present plea be deferred as the issue of SIR is pending before the Supreme Court…. This is not pertaining to SIR… We therefore ordered the BLO of Santacruz Constituency (in Goa) to add the names of the petitioners within a period of 10 days from today,” the bench said, as quoted by Live Law. The following are five kew takeaways from the Paresh Salgaonkar and Others v. State of Goa and Others judgment.SIR does not suspend existing lawsThe Bombay high court’s Goa bench asserted that the SIR does not absolve the state administration from ignoring to the statutory framework governing electoral registration.Examining section 22 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) , 1950, and rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, both of which concern changes in existing electoral entries, the court stated that the provisions continued to apply even under an intensive revision of electoral rolls.Also read: Don’t Have to Make False Form 6 Declarations During SIR, Says Goa Bench of Bombay HCIt held that electoral officers are, thus, required to pay attention to and consider form 8 applications submitted during the SIR exercise. The court added that the ECI could not use the SIR process as an instrument to refuse action on applications that voters are legally entitled to submit.Voters who shift residences must be permitted to submit form 8On the ECI’s insistence upon form 6 even for address changes, the court asserted that the form is only relevant for people seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, and form 8 must be accepted in such a condition.The Salgaonkar family, who had been registered voters in the Santa Cruz constituency since 1995, were flagged during the SIR for merely shifting from part 29 to part 25 of the same constituency before the exercise. When they called out their exclusion from the rolls, despite submitting the requisite form, the ECI said that because their names were no longer available in the enumeration software, they would have to submit form 6 as well.The bench rejected this position and held that existing voters must be permitted to file form 8 without having to falsify claims of being first-time voters.ECI cannot ask voters to make false declarationsThe court noted that form 6 requires an applicant to declare that their name is not included in any assembly or parliamentary constituency and that they are applying for registration for the first time. Therefore, an existing voter, who only shifted residence, cannot truthfully make such a declaration.According to Live Law, Justice Menezes observed:“If a voter comes to you with form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in form 6. Your enumeration form, basically has a declaration that a person continues to live in the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration?”The court also considered requirements mentioned under form 6 and Annexure-D of the SIR guidelines and found that both these regulations would have also required the petitioners to make untrue statements.It added that voters could not be compelled by the ECI to make false declarations, such as claiming that they continue to reside at the address mentioned in the existing electoral roll when it was false.“When someone doesn’t live in a particular address, why should that person make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration form? It will be a false declaration because under the said enumeration form, there is a declaration that X person continues to live here… The point is you cannot compel someone to make such a false declaration,” it said.Software issues cannot override statutory provisionsTaking note of the ECI’s claim that its electoral registration software had prevented officials from processing the family’s form 8 applications, the court asserted that technical limitations could not excuse statutory regulations.As per the Live Law report, the court found that the concerned ERO in the case had been left with only a “reject” option in the system during the enumeration period. The applications were rejected because the software did not allow the officer to process them in time.It also found that this had been the main reason behind the rejection, as opposed to authorities invoking valid grounds to refuse the requested address changes.The bench said technical glitches, like frozen screen, “amounted to an impermissible suspension of rule 13 read with section 22 of the Representation of the People Act.”Voters cannot be deleted without a hearingOne of the most important facets of this case was the deletion of the family’s names without giving them an opportunity to explain their circumstances. Section 22 of the RPA mandates an ERO to provide adequate time and opportunity to a person to present their case before any action is taken.The Goa bench also referred to rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, which enshrines the opportunity to be heard before a voter’s name is deleted.Also read: Election Commission’s Defence of Form 6 Use for Deleted Voters Ignores Supreme Court’s QuestionsCondemning the authorities for their failure in following procedure in the Salgaonkar family’s case, it said their removal from the list “amounted to a denial of their right to vote.” Thus, the statutory requirement of a hearing could not be bypassed simply because the SIR exercise is going on.When asked about postponning the case for when the Supreme Court had addressed the broader challenges to the SIR, the Bombay high court’s Goa bench said that the Salgaonkar family was not contesting the SIR itself, buy was only drawing attention to their rejection of form 8.Follow The Wire’s nationwide SIR coverage here.