Form 8 must be decided during SIR; deletion without hearing denies vote: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court’s Goa Bench ordered the Election Commission of India to restore the six Salgaonkar family members to the electoral roll. It also set aside the rejection of their Form 8 applications. The ruling protects voters who move within the same constituency from losing their registration during a revision.

The family’s names had been removed after a Booth Level Officer learned they had moved from one address to another. They had submitted Form 8 for the shift, and verification was completed. The Electoral Registration Officer later rejected the forms and directed them to submit Form 6 instead. The Court said this was legally wrong.

The judgment confirms that Section 22 and Rule 13 continue operating during an electoral-roll revision. An officer receiving Form 8 must decide it rather than refuse it because revision is underway. The Court also said deletion requires notice and an opportunity to show cause, reinforcing procedural protection for voters.

Form 8 is the application for a voter already listed on an electoral roll who wants to shift residence or correct an entry. It is different from Form 6, which is meant for a person seeking inclusion for the first time. This distinction matters because the forms require different declarations.

A voter who moves within the same constituency remains an enrolled voter seeking a change of address. The article’s petitioners had moved from Part 29 to Part 25 of the Santa Cruz constituency. They therefore submitted Form 8, which the Booth Level Officer uploaded on December 8, 2025, followed by verification.

The Court held that an Electoral Registration Officer cannot tell such a voter to file Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision. Form 6 requires a declaration that the applicant’s name is not on any Assembly or Parliamentary roll. That would contradict the existing record and could expose the applicant to Section 31.

The case involved six members of the Salgaonkar family. Their names had been included in Part 29 of Goa’s Santa Cruz constituency since 1995. This long period of registration was central to the dispute because they were not new applicants seeking inclusion for the first time.

Before the Special Intensive Revision began in November 2025, the six family members moved to Part 25 of the same constituency. A Booth Level Officer visited their old address, where the landlord said they had moved. The petitioners then approached the BLO at their new address on November 12, 2025, and were directed to submit Form 8.

Although the BLO uploaded their applications and verification occurred, the names disappeared from both relevant parts when the roll was published on December 16, 2025. The Court ordered the Election Commission to restore all six names and overturn the Form 8 rejection.

The Court held that an Electoral Registration Officer’s duty does not stop when an electoral-roll revision begins. Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, continue to operate during both Intensive and Summary revisions. An ERO receiving Form 8 must therefore consider and decide it.

This principle applied directly to the six petitioners. They had moved within the Santa Cruz constituency and submitted Form 8 after approaching the Booth Level Officer at their new address. The application was uploaded, verification took place, and the report was forwarded to the ERO. The ERO nevertheless rejected the forms because the revision was underway.

The High Court rejected the Election Commission’s argument that Form 8 could be refused during revision. It ordered restoration of the names and stressed that the legal process for correcting or shifting an existing registration remains available during the revision.

The Court treated notice and a hearing as essential safeguards before deleting an elector’s name. If a person is already on the roll but officials propose removing the name, the person must receive an opportunity to show cause. Without that chance, the citizen can lose the practical ability to vote.

The Salgaonkar family’s names disappeared after officials learned they had moved from their old address. They had already approached the BLO at the new address and submitted Form 8. Yet their names were absent from both Part 29 and Part 25 when the revised roll was published, without the required opportunity to respond.

The Bench relied on Rule 21A, which reflects the proviso to Section 22. It also said an ERO should try to give a voter who no longer resides in the constituency an opportunity to explain. The ruling links fair procedure directly to preserving the right to vote.

The voters could not simply switch to Form 6 because their situation was not first-time inclusion. Their names had been on the electoral roll since 1995, and they were seeking a residence shift within the same Santa Cruz constituency. Form 8 accurately described that request.

Form 6 requires an applicant to declare that the name is not on any Assembly or Parliamentary roll. Asking these voters to use it would therefore require a statement inconsistent with the official record. The Electoral Registration Officer rejected their Form 8 applications on January 21, 2026, and told them to submit Form 6 after their EPIC numbers were deleted.

The High Court said that direction was improper. It could expose the applicants to Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act because the declaration would conflict with the facts. The Court therefore ordered the Form 8 rejections set aside and the six names restored.

An electoral roll is the record of electors associated with a constituency. It identifies the people whose voter registrations are recorded for that area. The article describes the Salgaonkar petitioners as having names in particular parts of the Santa Cruz constituency, showing how the roll records voters within electoral areas.

The six petitioners’ names had been in Part 29 since 1995. After they moved within the constituency, they sought a shift to Part 25 through Form 8. Their names were then absent from both parts when the revised roll was published. The High Court said removal without notice and a hearing denied their right to vote.

Thus, inclusion is necessary for a person to remain recognised as an elector in the roll used for an election. The judgment requires officials to follow the statutory process before deletion. It also confirms that updating an existing registration must remain possible during revision.