The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of Santa Cruz constituency to include six members of a family in the electoral roll for Part 25. The Court held that the rules on shifting of residence do not stop working while a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists is on.
Background
Paresh Salgaonkar, Haresh Salgaonkar, Rajesh Salgaonkar, Gayatri Salgaonkar, Vasanti Salgaonkar and Rajashree Salgaonkar had been voting in Part 29 of the constituency since 1995. Before the SIR began, they moved to a house in Part 25 of the same constituency.
The Booth Level Officer (BLO) declined to issue them an enumeration form at the new address and asked them to file Form 8, which is meant for shifting of residence. The form was submitted on 12 November 2025 and uploaded on 8 December 2025. The draft roll published on 16 December 2025 did not carry their names. Later SMS alerts said verification was done and the form had gone to the ERO. Even so, it was rejected on 21 January 2026, two days after the last date for objections. The District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer upheld the rejection.
The petitioners argued that Form 6 is only for first-time voters and that existing electors who change address must use Form 8. The Election Commission of India (ECI) argued that Form 6 was required and that the portal was frozen during enumeration. It also asked the Court to keep the matter pending until the Supreme Court decides challenges to the SIR.
The Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar noted that a new elector is someone never previously on any roll. It held that filing Form 6 would have meant a false declaration by the petitioners. On the SIR, the Court said:
“We are clearly of the opinion that even whilst the revision of a Roll is ongoing, whether intensive or summary, the provisions of Section 22 or Rule 13 are never suspended and they continue to remain in force, and the EROs receiving Form 8 are bound to decide upon the application.”
The Court relied on an ERO communication of 20 February 2026, which said the system offered only a “reject” option for such forms. It observed:
“These finding clearly point to the fact that Form 8 filed by the Petitioners was rejected for only one reason, that the system did not permit the ERO to even process it and pass orders, since it was freezed during the enumeration period. This would amount to suspension of the provisions of Rule 13 read with Section 22 of the Act and is impermissible.”
On the enumeration form, the Bench said:
“Even if the Petitioners were given this Form, they would be obviously filing a false declaration, since the Form contained their pre-filled previous address from where they had shifted residence.”
The Court also found that the ERO gave no reasons and no hearing, contrary to the proviso to Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It treated the petitioners’ 23 January 2026 complaint as an appeal filed within time. It declined to keep the petition pending, noting that the petitioners did not challenge the SIR or the ECI Guidelines.
The Court allowed the petition and set aside the ERO’s order. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the ERO of Santa Cruz, Respondent No. 4, to include the petitioners’ names in Part 25 after confirming their residence, within ten days.
No order was made as to costs. The ECI’s request for a two-week stay, to approach the Supreme Court, was rejected.
Case Details
Case Title: Paresh Salgaonkar & Ors. v. The State of Goa & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 732 of 2026
Judges: Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar
Decision Date: 5 November 2026
