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

A representative image of the file | Photo credit: PTI

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that removing a voter’s name from the list without a hearing denies the right to vote to a citizen.

The bench passed the judgment on a plea by six members of the Salgaonkar family that the Electoral Registration Officer must decide on the Form 8 application while a special intensive review is under way. The bench also directed the Election Commission of India to restore the six names and set aside the rejection of their Form 8 applications.

The judgment delivered by Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar notes that Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Rule 13 of the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960 continue to operate during revision, whether intensive or summary, and that the ERO, which accepts Form 8, is bound to reject the revision instead. The Bench rejected the ECI’s contention that the ERO can reject Form 8 while the revision is pending.

Citing Rule 21A of the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960, the Bench said the rule reflects the proviso to Section 22 of the Act, which requires the ERO to give an opportunity to a person whose name is on the roll and is sought to be deleted, an opportunity to show cause before deletion. The court added that the ERO must endeavor to give a voter who does not reside in the constituency an opportunity to show cause why the proposed measure should not be taken.

The court reviewed Sections 22 and 23 of the Act with Rules 13 and 25 of the Rules and drew a line between Form 6 and Form 8 by holding that Form 6 is for a person seeking inclusion for the first time and requires a declaration that the name is not on any Assembly or Parliamentary list, while Form 8 is for voters on the list seeking change of residence or correction of entries within a constituency8 and cannot be forwarded to file form 6 during SIR.

The Bench held that the direction to file Form 6 would require the elector to declare that the name is not on the list and that the application is included for the first time, which would be against the record and expose the applicant to Section 31 of the Act. It also ruled that the removal of a name from the roll after revision and without a hearing when the voter submitted Form 8 for change of residence within that constituency denied the right to vote.

The petitioners had their names on the electoral roll of Part 29 of Santa Cruz constituency in Goa since 1995 and shifted to Part 25 before the commencement of SIR in November 2025. When the booth level officer visited the address on the list, the landlord said that they had moved whereupon the petitioners approached the BLO at the address they had moved to and sent Form 2 on 28 November.

The BLO uploaded Form 8 on 8 December 2025, verification was done and ECI told the claimants that the verification report was submitted and the applications were forwarded to ERO, but when the list was published on 16 December 2025, names were missing in Part 29 and Part 25. Subsequently, on January 21, 2026, they deleted Form 8 and Form 8 and should have told them the ERO numbers. 6.

The petitioners challenged the rejection before the District Electoral Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer, who both upheld them, and then petitioned the High Court, claiming that the rejection of Form 8 was not in accordance with the law and the rules and that the names were deleted without notice or hearing.

Published – November 6, 2026 1:11 PM IST