The Bombay High Court at Goa has issued a significant directive requiring the Election Commission of India (ECI) to reinstate the names of six family members to the electoral roll for the Santacruz constituency. The order, delivered on November 5, 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, brings an immediate resolution to a prolonged dispute between the election authorities and a local family whose names were struck from the rolls during the recently concluded Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The court has granted the Election Commission a strict deadline of 10 days to process the inclusion of these voters. This decision follows four days of intense hearings and serves as a critical intervention in the ongoing administrative friction regarding how voters who have changed their residences are treated during intensive revision cycles. The petitioners, led by Paresh Salgaonkar, had previously exhausted their remedies through the appellate processes within the election hierarchy, only to find their applications for change of address repeatedly rejected.

Conflict Over Administrative Protocols

At the heart of the litigation was a disagreement regarding the paperwork required to maintain voter status during the SIR. The Salgaonkar family had filed Form 8—the standard document intended for address changes—after moving to a different part of the same assembly constituency. However, the election authorities maintained that these requests were invalid because the family failed to submit an additional, pre-filled enumeration form. The Election Commission argued that under their guidelines for the Special Intensive Revision, the system did not permit the processing of standard Form 8 requests in isolation, effectively treating the absence of the enumeration form as a failure to qualify for the updated roll.

The family contended that their removal from the list occurred without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, despite them having been active voters in the constituency since 1995. The Election Commission, through its counsel, maintained that the SIR process necessitated a fresh collection of data. They argued that anyone not on the new draft roll was essentially a "non-inclusion" case rather than a formal deletion, asserting that the family should have applied as new voters via Form 6 during the claims and objections period.

The High Court remained unconvinced by the procedural obstacles cited by the Commission. During the hearings, the judges expressed significant concern regarding the requirement of a pre-filled enumeration form, which necessitates a declaration that the voter continues to reside at their old address. The Bench highlighted that the election authorities were, in effect, compelling citizens to sign a statement that the voter knew to be false, as their very purpose for filing Form 8 was to register a change of residence.

Judicial Scrutiny of the Voter Registration Process

The court’s ruling addressed the broader implications of the Election Commission’s rigidity in applying SIR guidelines. The judges observed that the primary mandate of the commission is the facilitation of the franchise, not the creation of administrative barriers that disenfranchise eligible citizens. The Bench was particularly critical of the automated rejection of address-change applications, suggesting that in instances where a voter is already on the rolls, such applications should be held in abeyance or adjudicated through a hearing, rather than summarily dismissed.

Addressing the ECI’s contention that the matter should be deferred because broader SIR-related challenges are currently pending before the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court drew a clear distinction. The Bench noted that the specific grievance of the Salgaonkar family did not constitute a wholesale challenge to the validity of the SIR process itself, but rather a targeted request for administrative rectification of specific entries. Consequently, the court proceeded to finalize its verdict, ruling that the petitioners’ right to be included in the electoral roll should not be hostage to the systemic uncertainties of broader, separate litigation.

Reflecting on the obligation of the state toward its voters, the judges emphasized that the proceedings had to be governed by statutory requirements rather than perceived administrative efficiency. The court remarked, “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.”

Refusal of Administrative Stay

Following the pronouncement of the order, the Election Commission sought a two-week stay on the operation of the directive, intending to approach the Supreme Court for further relief. The Bench categorically rejected this request. In its response to the Commission, the court underscored the fundamental nature of the relief, noting that the administration of electoral rolls must prioritize the active participation of the electorate.

“No stay. How can we grant stay on including names of voters in the list? You get a stay from Supreme Court,” the Bench stated, reaffirming that the administrative convenience of the poll body could not override the immediate necessity of ensuring that legitimate voters remain on the rolls.

The decision is viewed as a significant development for voters who find themselves caught in the middle of automated, technology-driven electoral revisions. By ordering the restoration of the Salgaonkar family’s names, the court has signaled that while the Election Commission holds wide powers to revise and update electoral databases, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised in a manner that remains consistent with the practical realities of voter residence and the statutory framework governing registration.

With the order now final, the Booth Level Officer of the Santacruz constituency is under a strict judicial mandate to update the rolls within the next 10 days. The case concludes for now, but its core principle—that administrative guidelines should not force citizens to make false declarations or lead to the automatic disenfranchisement of existing voters—is expected to resonate in future dealings between the public and election authorities. The petitioners have maintained that they simply sought to update their records in good faith, and the court’s intervention has now restored their right to exercise their franchise in the upcoming electoral cycles without further procedural delay.