In a Goa SIR ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the Election Commission of India to put back on the voters’ list the names of a family whose Form 8 address-change requests were rejected during the Special Intensive Revision, and has refused the ECI’s request to stay the order.
Panaji: The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday allowed a writ petition filed by members of the Salgaonkar family, whose names did not appear on the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Goa, and ordered the Booth Level Officer of the Santa Cruz constituency to add their names within 10 days [Salgaonkar & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (case title to be verified)].
The order was pronounced on November 5, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, after four days of hearings. The Bench had reserved its verdict on October 13. A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
What the Court ordered
Pronouncing the order, the Bench said:
“We allow the petition… We have rejected the contention of the ECI that the hearing in the present plea be deferred as the issue of SIR is pending before the Supreme Court…. This is not pertaining to SIR… We therefore ordered the BLO of Santacruz Constituency (in Goa) to add the names of the petitioners within a period of 10 days from today.”
The Bench issued a mandamus directing the officer to include the petitioners’ names after confirming their residence. Counsel for the ECI, Gaurish Agni, then sought a two-week stay. The Court refused.
“No stay. How can we grant stay on including names of voters in the list? You get a stay from Supreme Court.”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court At Goa Reserves Verdict On Family’s Plea Over Voter Deletions After SIR
The petitioners’ case
The family had told the Court that their names were left out of the draft electoral roll even though they had filed Form 8, the form used to change the address of an existing voter. Their Form 8 applications were rejected, and appellate authorities upheld the rejections. They challenged both the deletion and the appellate orders.
The ECI’s stand
The ECI first asked the Court to defer the hearing, citing a Supreme Court order asking High Courts to keep SIR writ proceedings in abeyance, and argued that the Goa challenge went to the entire SIR process. On the merits, Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni argued that absence from the draft SIR roll is a non-inclusion rather than a deletion, because the rolls are prepared afresh from newly collected enumeration forms. Under the SIR guidelines, he said, a voter had to submit the pre-filled enumeration form along with Form 8, and anyone left out had to apply as a new voter through Form 6 during the claims and objections period.
The Bench’s concerns during the hearings
The Bench held, prima facie, that the Goa case was different from the SIR challenges pending elsewhere, since the revision in Goa is already complete and the appellate rejections flowed from the initial deletions.
During the hearings, the judges questioned the requirement of a pre-filled enumeration form from voters who had moved. The form carries a declaration that the voter continues to live at the address in the existing roll. Justice Menezes had observed:
“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in Form 6 (inclusion of new voter)… But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration?”
The Bench also pointed to Rule 12, which provides for objections, and asked why a citizen could not directly submit Form 8. It criticised the automated rejection of Form 8 address changes, suggesting such applications be held in abeyance rather than rejected outright, and stressed that the rules require a hearing before a name is removed from the roll. It said the proceedings had to be decided by statutory law, not public perception, and that the ECI’s foremost duty is to prevent the disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.
Why the order matters
The order directs the ECI to restore specific names after an SIR, and it turns on a practical question faced by voters who have moved house: whether they must sign an enumeration form for an address they no longer live at, or apply afresh as new voters, to stay on the roll. By treating the Goa dispute as separate from the SIR challenges before the Supreme Court and refusing a stay, the Bench has given the petitioners immediate relief. The ECI’s position, that the SIR rolls are prepared afresh and non-inclusion is not deletion, remains open before the Supreme Court. The reasoned order, once released, will show how far the ruling extends beyond these petitioners.
Case Title: Salgaonkar & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (case title to be verified)
Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, Bombay High Court at Goa
Date of Order: November 5, 2026
For ECI: Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni; Advocate Gaurish Agni