The Bombay High Court has held that even when the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is underway, a citizen can file a Form 8 for change of address and deleting their names for filing such a Form would amount to denying them their right to vote.

A division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar while ordering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to restore the names of six persons of the Salgaonkar family, opined that even during the process of SIR of a Roll by preparing such Roll afresh, the provisions of Rule 13 read with Section 22 and the requirement to file Form 6 or Form 8 respectively for a new voter or for a voter seeking shifting of residence, does not get suspended.

"We reject any contention of the Election Commission that during the process of a SIR, the ERO is within the law to refuse giving effect to Form 8 whilst the revision is underway. 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. Removal of a name of an elector from the revised Roll, specially when they have already submitted Form 8 for shifting of residence within the same constituency, as has been done by the Petitioners, and that too without affording them any hearing would amount to denial of the citizen's right to vote," the judges held.

The bench further cited Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 said that the ERO must make an endeavour to give a voter, who does not reside in a constituency, a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the action proposed should not be taken in relation to him.

"This Rule is a reflection of the proviso to Section 22 of the RP Act which requires an ERO, to give, to the person, whose name exists on the Roll but is required to be deleted for any of the aforementioned reasons, a hearing before deleting such a name," the judges held.

Background

The petition was filed by six members of the Salgaonkar family, who had been exercising their right to vote in the Santa Cruz constituency of Goa since 1995.

The petitioners had initially been registered in Part 29 of the constituency. Before the commencement of the SIR exercise in November 2025, they shifted their residence to another part of the same constituency, Part 25.

When the Booth Level Officer (BLO) visited their earlier address during the enumeration exercise, the landlord informed the officer that the petitioners had shifted.

The petitioners subsequently approached the BLO of their new address on November 12, 2025, seeking enumeration forms. However, they were directed to submit Form 8 for shifting their residence.

The BLO uploaded their Form 8 applications on December 8, 2025. The applications were subsequently verified, and the petitioners received communications from the ECI indicating that the verification report had been submitted and the applications forwarded to the ERO.

However, when the draft electoral roll was published on December 16, 2025, the petitioners found that their names had been deleted from their earlier part and had not been included in the new part.

On January 21, 2026, the ERO rejected their Form 8 applications, informing them that their EPIC numbers had been deleted and that they would have to submit Form 6 as fresh applicants.

The petitioners challenged the rejection before the District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer. Both authorities upheld the rejection.

They thereafter approached the High Court, contending that the rejection of Form 8 was contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that their names had been deleted without notice or hearing.

Form 8, Not Form 6, Applicable To Existing Voters Shifting Residence

The High Court examined Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, along with Rules 13 and 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The Bench explained that Section 22 empowers the ERO to correct electoral entries, transpose an elector to another place in the roll on account of a change in ordinary residence, or delete a name in specified circumstances.

The proviso to Section 22 requires the ERO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking such action.

The Court distinguished between Form 6 and Form 8, observing that Form 6 is meant for persons seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, whereas Form 8 is prescribed for existing voters seeking shifting of residence or correction of entries.

The Bench noted that Form 6 requires an applicant to declare that their name is not included in any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency and that they are applying for inclusion for the first time.

An existing voter shifting residence, therefore, cannot be required to make such a declaration.

The Court held:

"A voter shifting from one residence to another can only file an application in Form 8, since he is a voter whose name already exists either in one Part of constituency, and would be shifting either to a different Part in the same constituency or to a different constituency."

ECI Can't Force Petitioners To File Form 6

The Bench also held that voters who shift their residence cannot be compelled by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit Form 6, meant for first-time voters, during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Court observed that requiring existing voters who have merely changed their address to submit Form 6 would force them to make a false declaration that their names were not already included in any electoral roll. It held that such voters must instead be permitted to file Form 8 for shifting their residence, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The Court said :

“if a voter shifting residence as in the case of the present Petitioners, had filed an application in Form 6, they would not only be making a false declaration in their application for inclusion in an Electoral Roll for the first time, but would also be falsely declaring that their name was not included in any Assembly Constituency or Parliamentary Constituency in the past.”

“Had the Petitioners filled in Form 6, in the circumstances referred above, they would be making a false declaration that their name did not exist in any Electoral Roll and that they were applying for inclusion in an Electoral Roll for the first time.”

“The Declarations that the Petitioner was called upon to give, in the prefilled Enumeration Form or in Form 6 or in the Form provided in the Annexure D to the SIR would all result in the same being false and rendering the Petitioners open to prosecution for offences punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act.”