Published Oct 02, 2026 | 7:01 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 02, 2026 | 7:01 PM
The bench said the ECI “has no business” asking the voters to file Form 6.
Synopsis: The Bombay High Court pulled up the Election Commission over the deletion of voters’ names during the SIR, saying the process was effectively putting the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules in abeyance and replacing them with a “completely alien procedure”. The court said the ECI could not use ERONET to prevent the processing of Form 8 applications, then require voters to file Form 6, and stressed that the electoral registration officer must control the software rather than be controlled by it.
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the deletion of voters’ names during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), observing that the poll body was effectively putting the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules in abeyance and starting a “completely alien procedure”, the Times of India reported.
A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar made the observation on Wednesday, 30 September, while hearing a petition filed by six members of a family from Santa Cruz challenging the deletion of their names from the electoral rolls despite their having filled Form 8 to change their 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. You cannot delete anybody without hearing that person. That’s the law as we understood it,” the bench 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?”
Advocate Gaurish Agni, appearing for the Election Commission, told the court that the ECI had no intention to deliberately delete anyone’s name, but maintained that the ERONET software did not permit Form 8 applications to be processed during the SIR period and that the family’s names were consequently deleted.
“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.
Also Read: Jantar Mantar 2.0: Protest seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s ouster intensifies, several detained in Delhi
The bench said the electoral registration officer (ERO) must have control over the ERONET software required to act on an elector’s case, and not the other way round.
“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.
“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.”
Advocate Agni contended that some voters whose names were deleted were later included after they submitted Form 6. He said the family in the present case had not submitted the enumeration forms and had refused to fill Form 6.
The bench rejected the argument and said the ECI “has no business” asking the voters to file Form 6.
“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,” the bench said.
“There are no fetters under the Act. All we are saying is when revision comes, it cannot override these provisions,” the bench said.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
