The Bombay High Court has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the exclusion of six members of a family from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Goa, asking whether a software-based process can restrict procedures provided under election law. The case concerns Paresh Vasant Salgaonkar and members of his family from the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency, whose names did not appear in the draft electoral roll despite their having submitted Form 8 after shifting residence within the same constituency. During the hearing, the court raised questions about whether administrative or technological arrangements could effectively prevent officials from processing applications under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The court's questioning centred on the relationship between the ECI's software system and the statutory procedures governing electoral-roll entries.
The family had moved from one address to another within the same Assembly constituency and used Form 8, which is prescribed for correction or modification of an existing electoral-roll entry, including a change of residence. However, their names were subsequently absent from the draft roll prepared during the SIR exercise. The ECI's position, as presented before the court, was that the family's names continued to be associated with their previous address and that the required enumeration process had not been completed there. The family was consequently treated under the categories used during the revision exercise for electors who were absent, permanently shifted, dead or duplicated. The omission prompted the family to approach the court, questioning why an existing elector who had already initiated a change-of-address process should effectively have to seek fresh enrolment.
The court particularly questioned the ECI's explanation that its software did not permit the Form 8 applications to be processed during the relevant stage of the SIR exercise. The judges asked why an elector whose name was already present on the electoral roll and who had sought to update the address through the prescribed mechanism should be required to submit Form 6, which is ordinarily used for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. The distinction is significant because Form 8 is designed for correction or modification of an existing entry, while Form 6 is used for inclusion in the electoral roll. Current electoral-roll guidance also recognises these separate purposes.
Also Read: Bombay HC: Child Welfare Paramount, Joint Parenting Not Recognised Under Indian Law
The High Court's concern, therefore, was not simply about a missing entry but about whether the technical design of an electoral software platform could determine which statutory procedures were available to voters. The court questioned whether the ECI was effectively “giving a go-by” to the applicable rules and Acts by relying on a software limitation. The issue assumes significance because electoral-roll revision involves both administrative instructions and statutory forms prescribed under the relevant legal framework. The ECI has separately faced questions over changes to the online Form 6 process during SIR. In July, reports noted that the online registration system had incorporated an additional declaration relating to an applicant's parents and their status in an earlier SIR, while the statutory form itself could only be amended through the prescribed legal process.
The Form 6 controversy has since developed further. On September 30, the ECI removed the additional SIR declaration from the online Form 6 process in states where the revision exercise had already concluded, while retaining it in states where SIR was still underway. The Commission had said on September 26 that during the non-SIR period, the forms applicable under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 would be used. The developments have added to scrutiny of how the ECI's technology platforms implement electoral-roll procedures and how those systems interact with the statutory framework. However, the Goa case involves a specific family and the handling of Form 8 applications, and the High Court's questions should not be treated as a final judicial finding that the ECI violated the law.
The proceedings come amid broader litigation and public scrutiny surrounding the implementation of SIR in different parts of the country. The Bombay High Court is also dealing with separate petitions concerning the Maharashtra SIR process, including pleas seeking safeguards against wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and challenges to decisions relating to electoral-roll management. The ECI has maintained that the revision process includes mechanisms through which voters can seek inclusion or correction if their names are missing from the draft roll. In Maharashtra, for example, the claims-and-objections process allows eligible electors to use Form 6 for inclusion, Form 7 for objections to entries and Form 8 for corrections or modifications. The Goa proceedings will continue to examine whether the specific handling of the Salgaonkar family's applications was consistent with the statutory framework and the procedures applicable during the SIR exercise.
Also Read: BJP Attacks Rahul Gandhi Over Election Commission Criticism, Calls Him ‘Inauthentic Politician’