Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Goa High Court Questions Voter Deletions During SIR
Six family members in Goa said their names were removed from the voter list.
They had moved to another house in the same constituency.
Officials told them to submit a form to update their address.
The form was rejected because officials could not find records of their voter ID cards.
The High Court said the Election Commission should help eligible citizens vote.
The judges questioned why a Special Intensive Revision was conducted after 24 years.
They also said voter records should be updated continuously.
The court suggested keeping difficult applications pending instead of removing people from the list.
The case will be heard again on October 5.
The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench said the Election Commission’s primary mandate is ensuring eligible citizens can vote.
The court heard a petition from six family members whose names were deleted from the electoral roll.
The family had moved within the Santa Cruz constituency and was told to submit Form 8 for an address change.
Their application was rejected after authorities found no record of their Electors Photo Identity Cards in processing.
The court said Form 8 applications should be kept pending during the SIR rather than automatically rejecting or deleting voters.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench, the Election Commission of India, and six petitioning family members led by Paresh Salgaonkar.
- What
- The court questioned the deletion of voters’ names and the rejection of their Form 8 address-change application during a Special Intensive Revision.
- When
- The remarks were reported on October 1; the plea will be heard further on October 5.
- Where
- Before the Bombay High Court’s Goa bench, concerning the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency.
- Why
- The petitioners’ names were deleted after their Form 8 application was rejected when officials found no Electors Photo Identity Card records.
High Court and Petitioners
Election Commission Authorities
Election body’s primary responsibility
High Court and Petitioners
The court said the Election Commission’s mandate is to ensure that as many eligible citizens as possible remain on the rolls and can vote.
Election Commission Authorities
The Election Commission’s advocate questioned why the petitioners had not notified authorities of their relocation earlier.
Handling Form 8 applications
High Court and Petitioners
The court said applications should be kept in abeyance during the SIR and considered afterward, rather than being rejected outright.
Election Commission Authorities
Authorities rejected the application after no record of the petitioners’ Electors Photo Identity Cards was found during processing.
Deletion and due process
High Court and Petitioners
The judges questioned what legal authority allows names to be deleted without giving electors a hearing and warned that software cannot override election laws.
Election Commission Authorities
The Election Commission relied on the processing and revision procedures that resulted in the petitioners’ names and application being rejected; the court is examining whether those actions were lawful.
- Petitioners
- Six family members, including Paresh Salgaonkar
- Constituency
- Santa Cruz Assembly constituency
- Application
- Form 8 for changing an address on the electoral roll
- Revision exercise
- Special Intensive Revision, described by the court as occurring after 24 years
- Court concern
- Automated or technical rejections could remove legitimate voters without a hearing
- Next hearing
- October 5
- Relevant law
- The Representation of the People Act