The Bombay High Court on Thursday ruled that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, continue to apply during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, directing authorities to include six members of a Goa family in the voters' list.
Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S Jamsandekar of the Goa bench, in a 44-page judgment, directed the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of Santa Cruz constituency to include the names of petitioner Paresh Salgaonkar and his five family members in Part 25 of the electoral roll after confirming their residence within 10 days.
The petitioners, who had been voting in Santa Cruz constituency since 1995, had shifted their residence from Part 29 to Part 25 of the same constituency. They had submitted Form 8 for change of address through the Booth Level Officer (BLO) on November 12, 2025. The application was uploaded to the ERO's portal on December 8, 2025.
However, their names were deleted from Part 29 but not included in the draft electoral roll for Part 25, said their lawyer advocate Vivek Rodrigues. The ERO rejected their Form 8 application on January 21, 2026, following which the District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer also rejected their appeals.
The High Court observed that Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules provides for revision of electoral rolls, and Rules 4 to 23 apply to an intensive revision just as they apply to the first preparation of a roll.
"Rule 25 therefore makes no exception for the application of the procedure for modifying entries and making new entries under rules 4 to 23, whether in the case of an intensive revision or in case of a summary revision," the Bench said.
It further held that "even during the process of Special Intensive Revision of a Roll by preparing such Roll afresh, the provisions of Rule 13 read with Section 22 and the requirement to file Form 6 or Form 8...for a new voter or for a voter seeking shifting of residence, does not get suspended".
"We reject any contention of the Election Commission that during the process of a Special Intensive Revision, the ERO is within the law to refuse giving effect to Form 8," the court said.
The court also observed that removal of an elector's name from the revised roll, particularly when the person had already submitted Form 8 for shifting residence within the same constituency, without giving them a hearing, "would amount to denial of the citizen's right to vote".
On the distinction between Form 6 and Form 8, the Bench said Form 6 is meant for a new elector who has never been included in any previous electoral roll, while Form 8 is prescribed for a person whose name already exists and who seeks to shift residence.
"A voter shifting from one residence to another can only file an application in Form 8," the judgment said.
The court noted that if the petitioners had submitted Form 6, they would have had to make a false declaration that their names had not been included in any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in the past.
The Bench also referred to the requirement under Section 22 of the RP Act that an elector be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before action is taken to delete or alter an entry in the electoral roll.
In the present case, the court noted that the petitioners' Form 8 application had been received before the enumeration phase of the SIR ended on December 11, 2025. The BLO had completed field verification and the application was forwarded to the ERO on January 17, 2026.
The Bench observed that the ERO was aware of the pending Form 8 application when the draft electoral roll was published on December 16, 2025.
"At least during the objections stage to the Draft Roll, the ERO was duty bound to consider Form 8...," it said.
The judgment noted that "there is no formal order passed by the ERO rejecting the application in Form 8."
The Bench also examined a communication dated February 20, 2026, from the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer to the District Election Officer, which stated that the ERONET system displayed the message "no record to EPIC details was found" while processing Form 8 applications. The communication said the system provided only one option to the ERO, which was "reject".
"The real reason for rejecting the Petitioners' Form 8 was the refusal of the system provided to the ERO to pass orders in accordance with Section 22 read with Rule 13," the judgement said.
This "would amount to suspension of the provisions of Rule 13 read with Section 22 of the Act and is impermissible", the court said.
It also noted that the BLO had refused to hand over the pre-filled enumeration form to the petitioners at their new address as it contained their previous address, and that there was no provision for issuing a blank enumeration form.
"Even if the Petitioners were given this Form, they would be obviously filing a false declaration, since the Form contained their pre-filled previous address from where they had shifted residence," the court said.
It added that the declarations the petitioners were asked to make in the pre-filled enumeration form, Form 6 or the declaration under Annexure D to the SIR guidelines "would all result in the same being false and rendering the Petitioners open to prosecution for offences punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act".
The High Court also rejected the Election Commission's request to keep the petition in abeyance till the Supreme Court decided challenges to the SIR in other states.
The Bench said the present petitioners had not challenged the SIR, and that their challenge was confined to the rejection of Form 8.
The court accordingly allowed the petition, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the ERO to include the six petitioners' names in the voter list.
The Bench also rejected the Election Commission's request for a two-week stay to its judgment to enable the Commission to approach the Supreme Court.
(With inputs from PTI)