This judgment decides only the six petitioners' own inclusion in Part 25 of the Santa Cruz roll. It does not strike down the Special Intensive Revision or the Election Commission's guidelines: the petitioners did not challenge the SIR itself, and the court expressly declined to keep the matter in abeyance pending the Supreme Court cases on the SIR.
- Case
- Paresh Salgaonkar and Others v. State of Goa and Others
- Court
- High Court of Bombay at Goa
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:BHC-GOA:2366-DB
- Bench
- Valmiki Menezes; Amit S. Jamsandekar
- Judgment by
- Valmiki Menezes
- Case numbers
- Writ Petition No. 732 of 2026; CNR No. HCBM050020712026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; rule made absolute and mandamus issued directing the Electoral Registration Officer, Santa Cruz constituency, to include the petitioners' names in Part 25 after confirming their residence, within ten days. No costs.
The decision
The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the Electoral Registration Officer of the Santa Cruz constituency to include the names of six members of the Salgaonkar family in Part 25 of the constituency's electoral roll, after confirming their residence, within ten days. A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S. Jamsandekar delivered the judgment on 5 November 2026, allowing the family's writ petition.
The court made the rule absolute and issued a writ of mandamus in the petitioners’ favour, holding that the authorities had wrongly insisted the family file Form 6 — for a first-time elector — when the correct form was Form 8, for an existing elector who has changed address. There was no order as to costs.
The court also declined a request by counsel for the Election Commission of India to stay the order for at least two weeks so that the Commission could approach the Supreme Court, observing that the directions concern only the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the voters' list.
How six voters fell off the roll
The petitioners — Paresh, Haresh, Rajesh, Gayatri, Vasanti and Rajashree Salgaonkar — had been electors in the Santa Cruz constituency since 1995, recorded in Part 29 of the roll. Before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began, they shifted residence within the same constituency to Part 25. When the SIR commenced on 4 November 2025, the booth level officer visited their old address and refused to give them an enumeration form for it. On 12 November 2025 the family contacted the booth level officer for their new ward, who told them to submit Form 8 for change of address; the form was uploaded on 8 December 2025.
The enumeration phase ended on 11 December 2025 and the draft electoral roll was published on 16 December 2025 — but the petitioners’ names appeared in neither Part 29 nor Part 25. Field verification was completed on 10 January 2026 and the Form 8 was forwarded to the Electoral Registration Officer on 17 January 2026.
The question before the court
The petition challenged the three orders — the Electoral Registration Officer's order of 21 January 2026, the District Election Officer's order of 2 March 2026 and the Chief Electoral Officer's order of 16 April 2026 — as contrary to the Representation of the People Act 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, and as arbitrary and in breach of natural justice.
Two questions lay at the heart of the case. First, which form must an existing elector use when shifting residence within a constituency — Form 6, for a new elector, or Form 8, for change of address? Second, can the provisions that let an elector seek correction of the roll be suspended while a revision of the roll, including an intensive revision, is under way?
Form 6 is for first-time electors; Form 8 is for shifting residence
The court held that Form 6 applies exclusively to a first-time elector seeking fresh enrolment: its declaration requires the applicant to state that their name has never been included in any assembly or parliamentary constituency roll. A voter who has shifted residence and files Form 6 would therefore make a false declaration, exposing themselves to prosecution for an offence under section 31 of the 1950 Act.
A voter shifting from one residence to another, whether to a different part of the same constituency or to a different constituency, can only file an application in Form 8, as prescribed by Rule 13 of the 1960 Rules. The court read Rule 25, which governs revision of a roll, together with section 22 of the Act, which empowers every Electoral Registration Officer to correct an erroneous entry and to transpose a person who has changed their place of ordinary residence within the constituency.
On that reading, the court held that even during a Special Intensive Revision, in which a roll is prepared afresh, Rule 13 read with section 22 is never suspended: officers receiving a Form 8 are bound to decide upon it, and removing an elector’s name without a hearing denies the citizen’s right to vote. The proviso to Rule 21A likewise requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a name is deleted.
Why the rejection failed
Applying those principles, the court found that the Electoral Registration Officer knew the petitioners’ Form 8 was pending when the draft roll was published on 16 December 2025, yet did not consider it during the objections stage, passed no formal order, and rejected it only by SMS on 21 January 2026 — after the objections window had closed. The officer neither afforded the petitioners a hearing as the proviso to section 22 requires nor gave effect to the declarations in Form 8. On that count alone, the court held, the original order of 21 January 2026 had to be set aside.
The court then identified the real reason for the rejection. A communication dated 20 February 2026 from the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer recorded that the ERONET system offered the officer only one option — to reject — and that Form 8 processing had been frozen during the enumeration phase. The court held that a system designed to refuse processing of Form 8 amounts to an impermissible suspension of Rule 13 read with section 22, and that Form 8 must be treated as granted.
The court also rejected the appellate authorities' finding that the first appeal was filed beyond limitation — the petitioners' complaint of 23 January 2026 ought to have been treated as an appeal within limitation — and applied the Supreme Court's decision in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (27 May 2026), which upheld the SIR guidelines while insisting that no name already on the roll be deleted without notice, inquiry and a fair opportunity to be heard. Because the petitioners did not challenge the SIR itself, the court declined to keep the matter in abeyance pending the Supreme Court cases on the SIR.
What happens now
The Electoral Registration Officer of the Santa Cruz constituency must include the six petitioners’ names in Part 25 of the constituency roll, after confirming their residence, within ten days of the order.
The judgment does not disturb the Special Intensive Revision itself. Its directions are confined to the petitioners' own entries, and the Election Commission remains free to approach the Supreme Court — but without the benefit of a stay of this order in the meantime.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This judgment is a useful map of the three forms under the Registration of Electors Rules 1960: Form 6 enrols a new elector, Form 7 seeks deletion of a name, and Form 8 corrects an entry — including a change of address. The forms are not interchangeable: Form 6 carries a declaration of first-time enrolment, so an existing elector who files it declares something untrue.
Note also the revision point: an intensive revision under Rule 25 prepares a roll afresh, but the court held that this does not suspend the correction machinery in section 22 and Rule 13 — and that a portal offering only a reject option can itself amount to an unlawful suspension of a statutory duty. Finally, observe the limits the court drew: it applied Association for Democratic Reforms rather than re-deciding the SIR’s validity, and refused abeyance because the challenge was to one family’s deletion, not to the revision.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the court hold that Form 6 was the wrong form for the petitioners, and what declaration would filing it have required them to make?
- How did the court read section 22 of the Representation of the People Act 1950 with Rule 13 and Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 to hold that Form 8 could not be refused during the Special Intensive Revision?
- What was the real reason the petitioners' Form 8 was rejected, and why did the court hold that it must be treated as granted?
