HC says draft roll can’t be basis for deleting names without hearing

Sourcing caveat: I was allowed 2 web searches. Both failed because the search tool rejected the whitelisted news domains, so no web results came back. Everything tagged [1] comes from the supplied Hindu article (Tier 4), and that text is cut off mid-sentence. Items tagged [2] are standard constitutional and statutory facts that were not checked against a source in this session. Check them against the bare Act on indiacode.nic.in or eci.gov.in before you rely on them.

1. At a Glance

• The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) held that a draft electoral roll cannot be the basis for deleting voters' names without a hearing. It also raised concern over automated deletions [1].
• The Court said the primary mandate of the Election Commission (EC) is to ensure that citizens cast their votes, and that the EC should try to keep as many eligible voters on the roll as possible [1].
• It also said citizens are entitled to ask why exercises like the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) are ordered after decades [1].
• For UPSC, the case links four things: universal adult franchise, natural justice (audi alteram partem), algorithmic or software-driven administrative action, and the independence and accountability of the ECI.

2. Why in the News

• 1 October 2026 (Thursday hearing; reported 2 October 2026): the Goa Bench, Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S. Jamsandekar, heard a petition by six members of one family whose names had been deleted from the voter list. It said the EC's action was "not in consonance with its mandate" [1].
• Facts of the case:
• Petitioner: Paresh Salgaonkar and family [1].
• The move: they shifted house within the same Santa Cruz Assembly constituency (Goa). The Booth-Level Officer (BLO) told them to file Form 8 for a change of address [1].
• The error: during processing, no record of their EPIC turned up. The ERONET software then offered only one option, "reject" [1].

• Outcome: Form 8 was rejected and the names were deleted, so the family went to the High Court [1].

• Exchange in court:

• EC counsel Gaurish Agni asked why the petitioners had not told authorities about their move earlier [1].
• The Bench's reply: the petitioner may equally ask "why this SIR after 24 years" [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional base:
• Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence of the electoral rolls [2].

• Article 326 provides for adult suffrage. The 61st Amendment (1988) lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 [2].

• Statutory base:

• Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs the preparation and revision of rolls. Section 21 covers revision, including a special revision under Section 21(3) [2].

• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 prescribe the procedure and the Forms [2].

• Judicial precedent: in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) the Supreme Court held that names already on the roll cannot be deleted without notice and a hearing [2].

• SIR in 2025–26:
• The ECI began an SIR in Bihar (June 2025), then extended it to other States/UTs, Goa among them [2].

• The Bench's remark points to an intensive revision in Goa roughly 24 years after the last one [1].

• Technology: roll management now runs through ECI's software platform ERONET, which is how software-driven rejection became an issue [1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Deleting a name without a hearing breaches audi alteram partem. The right to vote is statutory, but it gives effect to the constitutional promise of adult suffrage [S1; GK].
• A draft roll is only provisional. Treating it as final turns the claims-and-objections stage into a formality [1].
• The HC read the purpose of the RP Act as making sure votes are cast by citizens. That is an inclusionary reading [1].

Governance / Ethical

• Burden of proof: the EC asked why the citizen had not reported the move. The Court pointed back to the State's own long gap between intensive revisions [1].
• Accountability: a citizen who did everything right, by filing Form 8 on a BLO's instruction, still lost their franchise [1].

Scientific / Technological

• Automated deletions: ERONET allowed only "reject" when it could not match the EPIC. This shows how software design can bake in exclusion [1].
• Fix needed: human-in-the-loop review and an "exception or verify" path for data mismatches.

Social

• Migrants, tenants, the urban poor and people who move often are the most likely to fail record-matching, so deletions fall unevenly on them [GK, analytical].
• When a whole family is removed at once, the cost falls on the household [1].

Administrative

• Data quality: legacy EPIC records may be missing or not digitised [1].
• Workload: BLOs face heavy load and short timelines during an SIR [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• June 2025: the ECI ordered an SIR in Bihar. Large exclusions from the draft roll were challenged in the Supreme Court in ADR v. ECI [2].
• Late 2025: the SIR was extended to several more States/UTs, Goa included [2].
• 1 October 2026: the Bombay HC Goa Bench ruled that draft rolls cannot be the basis for deletion without a hearing and flagged automated deletions [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The ruling came from the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. Goa has no separate High Court [1].
• The Bench was Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S. Jamsandekar [1].
• The constituency involved was Santa Cruz, Goa [1].
• Form 8 is filed for a shift of residence or correction of an entry. It is not for a new inclusion (Form 6) or a deletion (Form 7) [S1; GK].
• ERONET is ECI's electoral-roll management software [1].
• EPIC stands for Elector Photo Identity Card [1].
• BLO stands for Booth-Level Officer, the field-level roll functionary [1].
• Rolls are prepared and revised under the RP Act, 1950. Conduct of elections falls under the RP Act, 1951 [2].
• Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls in the ECI [2].
• Article 326 provides for adult suffrage at 18 years, introduced by the 61st Amendment, 1988 [2].
• Article 325: there is one general electoral roll per constituency, and no one may be excluded on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex [2].
• Lal Babu Hussein (1995): no deletion of a listed elector without notice and a hearing [2].

8. Why One 'Reject' Button Took Away a Family's Vote

• A data gap at the EC's end turned into a punishment for the voter
• The family filed Form 8 only to change their address, as the BLO told them to [1].
• The software, ERONET, could not find their EPIC record [1].
• It then gave the official only one choice: "reject" [1].

• So a missing record in the EC's own database ended with six citizens losing their vote [1].

• The software skipped the step where a human asks "why?"

• When records do not match, the cause could be an old record that was never digitised, a typing error, or a real problem. The software cannot tell these apart.
• With only a "reject" option, every one of these cases gets the same result: rejection.

• The person whose name is removed never gets a chance to explain. That is why the Court linked automated deletion to the missing hearing [1].

• A change-of-address request should never be able to delete a voter

• Form 8 is for shifting or correcting an entry. Form 7 is the separate form for objections and deletions [S1; GK].
• Here, a Form 8 rejection removed the names altogether [1].
• In effect, a deletion took place without going through the deletion procedure and its safeguards.

9. The EC's Side: Clean Rolls Are Also a Duty

• The strongest case for the EC
• A roll that carries dead voters, people who have moved, and duplicate entries can be misused for fake voting.
• Keeping the roll accurate is part of the EC's job under Article 324 (the EC's power over electoral rolls) [2].

• The EC's counsel made a fair point: citizens should report a change of address on time [1].

• What is right about it

• Purifying the roll (removing wrong entries) is a legitimate aim. The Court did not say the EC cannot delete names.

• It said only that a draft roll cannot be the basis for deleting names without a hearing [1].

• Why the argument still fails in this case

• The family did report the move. It was their own Form 8 that set off the deletion [1].
• So the EC's question, "why didn't you tell us earlier?", does not fit these facts.

• The Bench answered with a question of its own: why hold an SIR after 24 years [1]? Old data is mainly the State's failure, not the voter's.

• The two kinds of mistake do not cost the same

• A wrongly kept name can still be caught on polling day, when the voter has to show identity.
• A wrongly removed name cannot be fixed on polling day. That vote is simply lost.
• This is why the Court put "keep as many eligible voters as possible" at the centre of the EC's mandate [1].

10. Who Should Have to Prove Eligibility: Citizen or State?

• The ruling puts the burden back on the State
• Before a deletion, the State must give notice and a hearing. The voter does not have to keep proving, again and again, that they belong on the roll [1].

• This follows Lal Babu Hussein (1995): a name already on the roll cannot be removed without notice and a hearing [2].

• Why this matters beyond Goa

• An SIR re-checks every elector (every registered voter) through fresh enumeration [2].
• If any record that fails to match can be removed, then everyone whose paperwork is weak is at risk. That is usually people who move often, rent their homes, or are poor (see Social, section 5).

• Audi alteram partem ("hear the other side") is the only check between a software mismatch and losing the vote.

• What the 'why after 24 years' remark adds

• The Court accepted that citizens can ask why an intensive revision is being held after decades [1].
• So an SIR is not beyond questioning. The EC may have to give reasons for its timing and method, not just carry it out.

11. What Must Change, and Who Must Change It

• ECI: give ERONET a 'refer to ERO' option, not just 'reject'
• If an EPIC record cannot be found, the case should go to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO, the official legally responsible for the roll) for review [S1; GK].

• Only a human decision, made after a hearing, should be able to remove a name. That is the rule set in Lal Babu Hussein [2].

• EROs: notice before removal, every time

• Every deletion, whatever form or software step triggered it, should first produce a written notice to the voter.

• The voter should get time to answer before the final roll is published. That is what the draft-roll stage is for [1].

• ECI: a Form 8 must never act as a Form 7

• A request to change an address should, at worst, leave the old entry as it was. It should not remove the voter [1].

• BLOs: help the voter fix a mismatch on the spot

• The BLO is the official the voter actually meets [1]. When a record cannot be found, the BLO should be able to collect proof directly, not leave the case to the software.

12. What This Ruling Does Not Settle

• It does not strike down the SIR

• The Court questioned how names were deleted and why the revision came so late. It did not rule the SIR itself invalid [1].

• It is a High Court view, with limited reach

• It binds authorities within the Bombay HC's jurisdiction. A national rule on SIR deletions has to come from the Supreme Court, where the Bihar SIR challenge (ADR v. ECI) was taken up [2].

• The final relief is not yet known

• The source report breaks off mid-sentence [1]. Do not write in an answer that the names were restored or that the EC was fined unless you have confirmed it.

• The scale of the problem is unknown

• This case is about one family [1]. How many other voters ERONET's "reject only" option has removed is not public in the sources here. That is a fair question to raise in an answer.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: A family of six was removed from the roll after ERONET offered only "reject" for a Form 8 change of address. The Bench pointed to an intensive revision held about 24 years after the last one [1]
• Law/Case: Article 324 (ECI's control over rolls), Article 326 (adult suffrage); RP Act 1950 (preparation and revision of rolls); Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO (1995): no deletion without notice and a hearing; Bombay HC (Goa Bench), October 2026: a draft roll cannot be the basis for deletion without a hearing [1]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the RP Act; constitutional bodies (ECI); separation of powers and judicial review; e-governance and transparency.
• GS-IV: Accountability, fairness, and ethics of automated decision-making.
• Possible questions: 1. "Electoral roll purification must not come at the cost of disenfranchisement." Critically examine this in light of the Special Intensive Revision exercises. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the challenges that algorithmic or software-driven administrative decisions pose to the principles of natural justice, with reference to electoral roll management. (10 marks) 3. Should the burden of proving eligibility rest on the citizen or on the State in electoral roll revision? Analyse with reference to recent judicial pronouncements. (15 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• SIR in Bihar and ADR v. ECI: this is the source of the SIR controversy and of the Supreme Court's directions on deletions.
• RP Act 1950 vs RP Act 1951: distinguishing rolls from the conduct of elections is a classic Prelims trap.
• Aadhaar–EPIC linkage (Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021): another data-matching and exclusion concern.
• Natural justice in administrative law (Maneka Gandhi, Lal Babu Hussein): the doctrinal base of the ruling.
• Appointment of the CEC and ECs (2023 Act; Anoop Baranwal): relevant to ECI independence and accountability.
• NRC in Assam and "D-voters": a parallel case of exclusion from rolls and of the burden of proof.
• Remote voting for migrants / RVM proposal: addresses the mobility problem behind change-of-address failures.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up the Forms: Form 6 is inclusion, Form 7 is deletion or objection, and Form 8 is shifting or correction. In this case it was a Form 8 rejection that led to deletion [S1; GK].
• Wrong court: this was the Bombay HC (Goa Bench), not a "Goa High Court" and not the Supreme Court [1].
• Wrong Act: electoral rolls come under the RP Act, 1950, not the 1951 Act [2].
• Summary vs intensive vs special revision: these are different revision types. SIR is a special revision with fresh, door-to-door enumeration [2].
• Status of a draft roll: a draft roll is provisional and open to claims and objections. It is not final, which is the point of the ruling [1].