Restore names of Goa family deleted during SIR exercise in 10 days: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the Election Commission of India to restore seven family members to the electoral roll. The order followed a petition by Paresh Salgaonkar, who said the family’s names were missing from the draft roll after a Special Intensive Revision. The ruling matters because it required the poll panel to correct the omission quickly.

The court specifically ordered restoration of Salgaonkar’s name and the names of six family members. They lived in the Santa Cruz constituency and had submitted Form 8 to report an address change within that constituency. Their names were absent from both the draft roll and the final roll published on February 21.

The bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar gave the Election Commission 10 days to act. The decision came after the court reserved its verdict on October 13. It establishes a clear immediate remedy for this family, while the article does not state whether the ruling changes the wider SIR procedure.

The court ordered the restoration of seven names in total. The group included Paresh Salgaonkar and six members of his family. Their names had been omitted from the draft electoral roll during a Special Intensive Revision in Goa. This number shows that the case affected an entire household, not just one individual voter.

Salgaonkar lived in the Santa Cruz constituency in north Goa. The family had submitted Form 8 after changing its address within the same constituency. Despite that submission, the names were missing from the draft roll and later from the final roll issued on February 21. Salgaonkar challenged the omission in the Bombay High Court at Goa.

The bench ordered the Election Commission of India to restore all seven names within 10 days. The ruling gives the family a direct remedy, but the article does not report how many other voters were affected by similar omissions during the SIR. It focuses on this family’s successful petition.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a process for preparing an electoral roll afresh. Under the Election Commission’s interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the existing roll is used only as a reference base. Names do not automatically carry forward into the new roll.

The Election Commission told the court that every elector must respond during an SIR. A name enters the draft roll when the elector’s enumeration form is submitted. If someone is missing from that draft, the person must file Form 6 during the claims and objections period, along with the required declaration and supporting documents.

This process differs from simply updating an existing list. It can leave previous electors outside the draft roll unless they complete the required step. In Salgaonkar’s case, the family argued that Form 8 should have been considered because it reported an address change within the same constituency. The court ultimately ordered restoration of their names.

The Election Commission argued that an SIR does not simply edit the previous electoral roll. Instead, Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, requires the roll to be prepared afresh. The old roll helps officials identify existing entries, but it does not automatically place those names in the new draft.

According to the ECI lawyer, a name appears in the draft only after the elector’s enumeration form is submitted. Therefore, a name absent from that draft was not technically deleted from the new roll; it had not yet entered it. The ECI said the voter then had to file Form 6 with a declaration and supporting documents.

This interpretation was central to the dispute. Salgaonkar argued that his family had already submitted Form 8 for an address change, and that the form was rejected too late for an appeal. Their names were also absent from the final roll. The High Court nevertheless ordered restoration within 10 days.

Form 8 is used to change an address or correct an entry in an existing electoral roll. Form 6 is used during the SIR claims process to seek inclusion in the final electoral roll. The Election Commission said a person missing from the draft had to submit Form 6 with a prescribed declaration and supporting documents.

The Salgaonkar family had changed its address within the same constituency. They submitted Form 8 on December 2, 2025, two days before the initial enumeration deadline. Salgaonkar refused to submit Form 6 because he said doing so would declare something untrue: he was neither a first-time voter nor someone who had shifted to another constituency.

The family argued that Form 8 could not simply be ignored. Their lawyer said its rejection came on the final date for deciding objections, leaving no opportunity to appeal. The court ordered restoration, but the article does not state whether Form 8 will be accepted more broadly in future SIR cases.

A routine Special Summary Revision, or SSR, updates an existing active electoral roll. The Election Commission told the court that an SIR is more fundamental: it prepares the roll afresh under Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The old roll remains a reference rather than an automatic foundation.

The practical difference is who must act. During an SSR, only people with new or changed cases generally need to submit forms. During an SIR, the ECI said every elector must respond through the enumeration process. A name appears in the draft only when the enumeration form is submitted.

That distinction caused the Salgaonkar dispute. The family had filed Form 8 after changing its address within Santa Cruz constituency, but its names were missing from the draft and final rolls. The ECI said a missing voter had to file Form 6. The High Court instead ordered restoration within 10 days.

Being included in the electoral roll is essential because the roll identifies the people entitled to participate as voters in a constituency. If a name is missing, the person may not be able to vote through that electoral process. The article illustrates this risk through the Salgaonkar family, whose names disappeared during an SIR.

The article says the Election Commission required a missing person to file Form 6 during the claims and objections period. That application had to include a prescribed declaration and supporting documents. Officials then decided the claims and objections before publishing the final roll. These steps are the safeguards described in the article.

In general, such checks are intended to verify an applicant’s identity, residence, and eligibility, although the article does not detail every legal condition. The High Court ordered restoration for the seven Salgaonkar family members. The case shows that safeguards must also account for existing voters whose names are omitted during a fresh revision.