NT Reporter
Panaji
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday quashed orders deleting the names of six members of a Santa Cruz family from the electoral roll after they moved to a new house within the same Assembly constituency.
The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the electoral registration officer (ERO) of Santa Cruz constituency to include the petitioners’ names in Part 25 within ten days, while declining the Election Commission of India’s request to stay the decision.
The division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S Jamsandekar held that statutory safeguards protecting registered electors can never be suspended during a special intensive revision (SIR) exercise, nor can technical portal glitches deprive citizens of their right to vote.
The verdict came in a writ petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and five family members – all voters in Santa Cruz Assembly constituency since 1995. Prior to the commencement of the SIR in late 2025, the family relocated from the rented premises in Part 29 to a new home in Part 25 (Voddlem Bhat) within the same constituency.
The High Court said, “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 whilst the revision is underway. We are clearly of the opinion that even whilst the revision of a roll is ongoing, whether intensive or summary, the provisions of Section 22 or Rule 13 are never suspended and they continue to remain in force, and the EROs receiving Form 8 are bound to decide upon the application.”
Addressing the official demand for Form 6, the High Court noted that forcing existing electors to sign first-time voter declarations would compel them to make false statements punishable by law.
The High Court said, “By definition, the petitioners were not new voters and their application in Form 8 could not be rejected on the insistence that they should file Form 6 as new voters. The declarations that the petitioner was called upon to give 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.”
Following instructions from the local booth level officer, the Salgaonkars submitted Form 8—the statutory application for electors shifting residence within a constituency on November 12, 2025. It was uploaded to the electoral portal on December 8, 2025. However, upon publication of the draft electoral roll on December 16, 2025, the family discovered their names had been deleted from their former ward without being included in their new ward.
Despite verification reports confirming their residence, the ERO issued an automated SMS rejecting their Form 8 on January 21, 2026. Officials informed the petitioners that because the portal was frozen during enumeration, the system reflected ‘no record’, leaving ‘reject’ as the only software option. Election authorities insisted the family must re-apply as first-time voters using Form 6. Subsequent appeals before the district election officer and the Chief Electoral Officer of Goa were rejected.
Taking a stern view of the election machinery’s conduct, the High Court rejected the ECI’s contention that regular statutory provisions under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, remain suspended during a special intensive revision.
The High Court said, “The 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, without affording them any hearing would amount to denial of the citizen’s right to vote.”
