Court rules rejection of Form 8 applications for shifting residence within same constituency illegal; directs immediate inclusion of petitioners in electoral roll despite technical glitches in election portal
In a significant judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Paresh Salgaonkar and others vs. State of Goa and others, reinforcing the rights of existing voters to have their names correctly included in the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Division Bench comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S. Jamsandekar held that existing voters who shift residence within the same constituency must file Form 8 for transposition and not Form 6, which is meant solely for new voters seeking fresh inclusion.
The petitioners, long-time residents and voters registered in Part 29 of the Santa Cruz constituency in Goa, had shifted their residences to Part 25 within the same constituency. Prior to the commencement of the Special Intensive Revision, they filed Form 8 applications for change of address, duly acknowledged by the Booth Level Officer (BLO) and uploaded on the election portal within the prescribed time. Despite clear statutory provisions under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, their names were excluded from the Draft Electoral Roll for Part 25 without any notice, hearing, or reasoned order.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) rejected the Form 8 applications on the ground that the portal was technically frozen during the enumeration phase, and insisted that the petitioners should have filed Form 6, which was contrary to the statutory scheme. Appeals filed by the petitioners with the District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer were dismissed without proper consideration or hearing.
The High Court held that the rejection of Form 8 based on technical freezing of the ERONET portal and the insistence to file Form 6 was illegal and arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 22 and Rule 13 cannot be suspended even during a Special Intensive Revision, and the Election Officers are bound to process such applications. Furthermore, deletion or non-inclusion of voters' names without notice and opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the RP Act and the Rules. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2026) affirming that deletions from electoral rolls must be preceded by inquiry and hearing.
Rejecting the ECI's request to keep the matter in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision on other challenges to the SIR, the Court underscored that the petitioners' valuable right to vote cannot be prejudiced by procedural delays.
Consequently, the Court set aside all impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' claims and issued a writ of mandamus directing the ERO of Santa Cruz Constituency to include the petitioners' names in Part 25 of the electoral roll within ten days after verifying their residence. The Court declined to stay the operation of its order, thereby ensuring immediate protection of the petitioners' right to vote in the forthcoming elections.
This judgment clarifies the correct procedural route for electors shifting residence within the same constituency, reinforces adherence to statutory safeguards during electoral roll revisions, and highlights the inviolability of voters' constitutional right to participate in elections.
Bottom Line:
Electoral law - Existing voters shifting residence within same constituency must apply in Form 8 and not Form 6 - During Special Intensive Revision, statutory provisions under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are not suspended - Deletion/non-inclusion of voters' names without notice, hearing and reasoned order is illegal - Technical freezing of portal cannot defeat right to vote.
Statutory provision(s):
Representation of the People Act, 1950 Sections 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31;
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 Rules 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15-21A, 22, 23, 25;
Paresh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa, (Bombay)(DB)(Goa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3014537
