The Election Commission’s software is quick to delete voters who have moved house but appears unable to re-enrol them, the Bombay High Court at Goa has remarked, asking the poll body why Form 8 applications for change of address are being rejected automatically during the Goa SIR, the Special Intensive Revision of the State’s electoral rolls.
Panaji: The Bombay High Court at Goa on October 1 questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the automatic rejection by its software of Form 8 applications filed by voters seeking to change their address in the electoral roll during the ongoing Goa SIR (Special Intensive Revision), while hearing petitions by members of a family whose names were dropped from the draft roll [Paresh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa].
A Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, which has been hearing the matter since September 28, adjourned it to October 5 for further hearing.
The family’s grievance
The petitioners, members of the Salgaonkar family, contend that their names were left out of the Goa SIR draft electoral roll even though they had filed Form 8, the application used to record a change of address. Their plea before the first authority was rejected, and the appellate authority too declined relief, after which they approached the High Court.
ECI’s explanation
Appearing for the ECI, Advocate Gaurish Agni explained that under the Goa SIR process, a voter who no longer lives at the address shown in the earlier roll must first submit the pre-filled enumeration form handed out by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and must also file Form 8 to have the new address recorded.
In the petitioners’ case, he submitted, the family had not informed the ECI for eight years that they had moved, and the change came to light only when the BLO checked with local residents. According to Agni, the family did not submit the enumeration forms, came forward with Form 8 only about two days before the deadline for enumeration forms, and insisted on filing Form 8 alone, which was disallowed under the ECI’s guidelines. Their names were dropped from the draft roll because the enumeration forms were never filed.
He added that the family had been told they could file Form 6 with their new address for inclusion during the objections period, but chose not to, and instead pursued the first and appellate authorities.
‘Either accept or reject’
The Bench observed that while the system was successfully identifying voters who had changed address and deleting their names, it appeared to be failing to enumerate those shifted voters at their new address, and was rejecting Form 8 applications outright without offering any remedy. Responding, Agni explained that Form 8 is accepted when it comes with the pre-filled enumeration form, so that the voter’s details are in the database. He told the Court:
“But if there is no enumeration form, which would mean the database does not have that particular voter’s details, and thus if the said voter fills in the Form 8, the same will be rejected automatically. As there are only two options, either accept or reject… No voter is left remediless in this process… The petitioners are at fault of not informing the ECI for eight long years about the fact that they have changed their address to some other ward, though in the same constituency.”
The judges were not persuaded that outright rejection was the answer. They observed that there ought to be some mechanism other than straightaway rejecting Form 8 applications, and reminded the ECI that its ultimate aim of an inclusive electoral roll could be defeated if the practice continued.
Why The Goa SIR Hearing Matters
The exchange goes to the design of the Goa SIR process rather than just this family’s case. The ECI’s position is that the enumeration form is the gateway to the database and that voters who miss it still have Form 6 to seek fresh inclusion. The Bench’s concern is that a binary software response may leave genuine voters who have only moved within a constituency off the draft roll. No order has been passed yet, and the matter will be taken up again on October 5.
Case Title: Paresh Salgaonkar v. State of Goa [Writ Petition No. 732 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, Bombay High Court at Goa
Date of Hearing: October 1, 2026
For the Election Commission of India: Gaurish Agni, Advocate