issue of deletion of name from the voters' list is a serious matter

the Kerala High Court  in A. Subair vs The Chief Election Commissioner ... on 10 June, 2019  through THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY, on   MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 in  WP(C).No. 13684 of 2019 held as below

"... the issue of deletion of name from the voters' list is a serious matter to be looked into by this Court. Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner is residing in the address contained in the voters' list ever since he started voting, and even now residing in the same building. It is also pointed out that, petitioner's wife and daughter who are residing in the very same address were in the voters list, and therefore, the contention advanced in the statement that petitioner is not ordinarily resident in the address is not true or correct. The said statement made by the petitioner is not disputed by the respondent. Anyhow, it is submitted that, for a short period, petitioner has shifted his residence while the repair works of the residential building was going on. But, it is quite surprising to note that, even though the entire family members were shifted to temporary residence, the wife and son of the petitioner still remained in the voters list and the petitioner's name alone was deleted. 9. In my considered opinion, this is a matter to be looked into by the respondent seriously in order to avoid such situations in future. The voting right of a person is a valuable right enjoyed by a person, which cannot be taken away by deleting the name from the voters list. If a person is already appearing in the voters list, before removing the said person from the voters' list, necessarily due and thorough enquiry should be conducted, and I do not think, in the case on hand, the officers functioning under the respondent have undertaken such an exercise. In this context, Sec.22 of Act, 1950 is relevant, which read thus: "22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.--If the electoral registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency-- (a) is erroneous or defective in any particular, (b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residence within the constituency, or (c) should be detected on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed: A. Subair vs The Chief Election Commissioner ... on 10 June, 2019 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/188630194/ 3 Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on the ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed." 10. On an evaluation of the said provisions, it is explicit that, they are peremptory in nature and can never be brushed aside or overlooked. Proviso thereto makes it clear that before removing a person from the voters list, the electoral registration officer is duty bound to give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken. Which thus also means, the action or enquiry contemplated under Sec.22 of Act, 1950 is not an empty formality, but on the other hand, founded on principles of natural justice, which if violated, action becomes arbitrary and illegal inviting action against the officer concerned. Bearing the said aspects in mind, it is clear, no such serious exercise is undertaken by the officer, before removing the name of the petitioner. It is also apposite to mention that, mere inaction on the part of the petitioner to restore the name removed from the voters list, is not a justification for removing the name, otherwise than in accordance with law. 11. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondent to conduct detailed enquiry in the subject matter, and if required, take appropriate action against the officers who have removed the name of the petitioner from the voters list, at the earliest, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that, if the petitioner makes an application to the officer concerned, his name will be restored in the voters list. Therefore, petitioner is given the liberty to submit any application before the officer concerned, in accordance with law, and as per the procedure prescribed, and if any such application is received, it shall be processed and finalized, at the earliest, and at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of application from the petitioner.