The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to restore the names of Paresh Salgaonkar and six members of his family to the electoral rolls within 10 days, after they were left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
A bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar allowed the petition and ordered the restoration of their names. The court had reserved its verdict on October 13.
The order followed a dispute over the rejection of Form 8 applications submitted by the family to update their residential address. The petitioners, residents of the Santa Cruz constituency in north Goa, had shifted houses within the same constituency but found their names missing from the draft electoral roll.
The court also declined the ECI's request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court decides on challenges to the SIR exercise. It refused to stay its order for two weeks, as sought by the poll panel. The detailed written order is awaited.
Family refused to submit Form 6, called it a false declaration
Salgaonkar approached the high court after the family's names were omitted from the draft roll despite their having submitted Form 8, which is used to seek a change of address or corrections to an existing voter registration.
According to advocate Vivek Rodrigues, who represented the petitioners, the family members were removed from the draft electoral roll because they had changed their address within the same constituency before the enumeration phase.
They submitted Form 8 on December 2, 2025, two days before the initial deadline for the enumeration phase. However, their names did not appear in the final electoral roll published on February 21.
Salgaonkar refused to submit Form 6, which is meant for fresh enrolment, arguing that doing so would require him to make a false declaration because he was neither a first-time voter nor someone who had shifted to another constituency.
During the hearing, Rodrigues said the family's Form 8 application was rejected on the last date for deciding objections, leaving them with no opportunity to appeal against the rejection.
“We have tried to point out that Form 8 cannot be just left out of the loop. My client’s Form 8 was rejected on the last date of deciding the objections. So, my client had no chance to file an [appeal] against rejection of Form 8,” he told the bench.
ECI says SIR requires electoral rolls to be prepared afresh
Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the ECI, argued that the SIR process was fundamentally different from the routine Special Summary Revision (SSR), which updates an existing electoral roll.
Citing Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, he said an electoral roll undergoing intensive revision had to be prepared afresh rather than simply carried forward from the previous list.
“A core feature of the SIR is that the Electoral Roll is prepared afresh. Under the SIR, the existing roll is not carried forward automatically. The existing roll serves only as a reference base,” Kumbhakoni submitted.
He argued that the absence of a name from the draft roll did not technically mean that the elector's name had been deleted. According to the ECI, a name entered the draft list only after the elector's enumeration form had been submitted.
“The draft, therefore, contains only those who have been enumerated. In SSR, only new or changed cases need to act, whereas in SIR, every elector must respond,” the lawyer said.
Kumbhakoni further submitted that anyone whose name did not appear in the draft roll had to apply through Form 6, accompanied by the prescribed declaration and supporting documents, during the claims and objections period.
Once the claims and objections were decided, the final electoral roll would be published. Such an elector would effectively be treated as a new applicant for the roll being prepared, he argued, adding that inclusion in an earlier electoral roll did not automatically guarantee a place in the new one.
Court questioned Form 6 requirement for voters seeking address changes
The dispute had earlier prompted the high court to question the ECI's insistence that the family submit Form 6 despite having applied through Form 8 to update their address.
During the hearings, the bench questioned whether voters who had shifted residence could be compelled to sign an enumeration form containing a declaration that they continued to live at their previous address. It also questioned why the authorities could not process their Form 8 applications instead of treating them as new applicants.
The court had also raised concerns about the possibility of eligible voters being excluded because of the way applications were processed during the SIR exercise. It questioned the reliance on the draft roll and the handling of Form 8 applications, stressing the need to ensure that eligible voters were not left out of electoral rolls.
The latest order directs the restoration of the Salgaonkar family's names within 10 days, bringing an end to their legal challenge over their exclusion from Goa's electoral rolls.