PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that technical glitches in the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) software cannot be used as a reason to deny eligible voters their legal rights, directing election officials to process genuine applications in accordance with the law.
The ruling came in a 42-page judgment concerning six members of a family from Santa Cruz whose names were excluded from the draft electoral roll despite submitting applications for changes in their residential details.
The Division Bench quashed the rejection of their applications and directed the concerned Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to verify their residence and restore their names in Part 25 of the electoral roll within 10 days.
The family, led by Paresh Salgaonkar, had submitted Form 8 applications through their Booth Level Officer (BLO) on November 12, 2025. Although the applications were uploaded on December 8, their names were missing from the draft electoral roll published on December 16.
The applications were subsequently rejected on January 21, 2026, after the deadline for filing claims and objections had already expired.
During the hearing, the court was informed that the ERONET system displayed an error stating, “no record to EPIC details was found”. The ERO’s login reportedly offered no option to process the applications, leaving rejection as the only available option.
The Bench questioned why the officer failed to examine the physical applications and take an independent decision instead of relying entirely on the software.
The court also raised concerns over the enumeration process for voters who had shifted residences, observing that pre-filled forms containing old addresses could force electors to provide incorrect information.
It further highlighted the potential legal consequences of submitting incorrect declarations under the prescribed forms, including possible prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act.
The judgment also pointed out that the ERO had rejected the applications without providing adequate reasons through a formal speaking order or giving the applicants an opportunity for a hearing.
Clarifying the application procedure, the High Court observed that Form 8 is intended for existing voters shifting their registration due to a change of residence. They cannot be treated as new voters and forced to apply through Form 6.
The court’s ruling reinforces that digital systems are meant to facilitate election administration and cannot override statutory provisions or deprive eligible citizens of their electoral rights.
