Form 8 Must Be Decided Even During SIR, Rules Bombay High Court in Paresh Salgaonkar v. Election Commission of India
Case: Paresh Salgaonkar and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others
Date of Judgment: 05 November 2026
Court: High Court of Bombay at Goa
Coram: Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar
Proceedings: Writ Petition (Goa Bench)
Court Observation
“Removal of a name of an elector from the revised roll, especially when they have already submitted Form 8 for shifting of residence within the same constituency and that, too, without affording them any hearing, would amount to denial of the citizen’s right to vote.”
Summary
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that an Electoral Registration Officer must decide a Form 8 application even while a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls is underway, and that deleting an elector’s name without a hearing denies the citizen the right to vote. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to restore the names of six members of the Salgaonkar family to the electoral roll of the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency in Goa within 10 days, and declined to stay its order to enable an appeal.
The Court held that Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, continue to operate during a revision, whether intensive or summary, and that an officer receiving a Form 8 application is bound to decide it rather than refuse it because the revision is underway. It drew a line between Form 6, meant for a person seeking inclusion for the first time, and Form 8, meant for a voter already on the roll who seeks a shift of residence or correction of entries. Directing the family to file Form 6 would have required a false declaration that their names were not on any electoral roll, exposing them to prosecution under Section 31 of the Act.
Key Holdings
- Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, continue to operate during a revision of the electoral roll, whether intensive or summary; a Special Intensive Revision does not suspend them.
- An Electoral Registration Officer who receives a Form 8 application is bound to decide it and cannot refuse to give effect to it merely because a revision is underway.
- Form 6 is for a person seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, while Form 8 is for a voter already on the roll who seeks a shift of residence or correction of entries; an existing voter who shifts within the constituency can file only Form 8.
- Removal of an elector’s name from the revised roll without affording a hearing, especially after a Form 8 application has been submitted, amounts to denial of the citizen’s right to vote.
- Directing a voter whose name is already on the roll to file Form 6 would require a false declaration and expose the voter to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Directions Issued
- The Election Commission of India shall restore the names of the six members of the Salgaonkar family to the electoral roll within 10 days.
Background
The six petitioners had been voters in Part 29 of the Santa Cruz constituency in Goa since 1995 and shifted their residence to Part 25 within the same constituency before the Special Intensive Revision began in November 2025. They submitted Form 8 applications to update their address, which were uploaded on 8 December 2025 and verified, but when the draft roll was published on 16 December 2025 their names were absent from both parts. On 21 January 2026 the Electoral Registration Officer rejected their Form 8 applications, stating that their elector photo identity card numbers had been deleted and that they should apply afresh in Form 6. The family filed a writ petition in September 2026 challenging the rejection and the appellate orders refusing inclusion.
Related Articles
- Voter suppression post-SIR: Remedies, RTI strategies, impact on universal suffrage
- Voters Can File Private Complaints Over False Election Affidavits, Rules Supreme Court
- Electoral Bonds Judgment: Transparency vs Anonymity in Political Funding
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
