Bombay High Court clarifies that shifted voters must file Form 8 during SIR, warning that incorrect Form 6 declarations may invite prosecution.
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has clarified that voters who have shifted residences must use Form 8 to update their electoral details during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), rather than submitting Form 6 or a pre-filled enumeration form.
Bombay High Court Explains Why Form 8 Is Mandatory For Existing Voters Shifting Residence
The matter arose from a petition filed by six members of the Salgaonkar family, who had been exercising their right to vote in Goa’s Santa Cruz Assembly Constituency since 1995. The family had shifted their residence from Part 29 to Part 25 of the same constituency before the commencement of the SIR exercise.
Following the change of residence, the petitioners approached the Booth Level Officer (BLO) and submitted Form 8 on November 12, 2025, seeking the transfer of their names to the electoral roll corresponding to their new address. The applications were subsequently uploaded to the Electoral Registration Officer’s (ERO) portal on December 8, 2025.
However, when the draft electoral roll was published on December 16, 2025, the petitioners discovered that their names had been deleted from the earlier electoral roll but had not been included in the new one.
Their Form 8 applications were eventually rejected by the ERO on January 21, 2026. The authorities informed them that their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers had been deleted and that they would have to submit Form 6 to seek fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.
The petitioners challenged the rejection before the District Election Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer, but their appeals were unsuccessful. Consequently, they approached the Bombay High Court, contending that the rejection of their applications was contrary to the statutory provisions governing electoral registration.
Form 6 And Form 8 Serve Different Purposes
Examining the statutory framework, the Division Bench considered 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 Court explained that Form 6 is prescribed for individuals seeking inclusion in the electoral roll for the first time, whereas Form 8 is intended for existing voters seeking a change of residence, correction of particulars or replacement of their Elector Photo Identity Card.
The Bench observed that Form 6 requires an applicant to declare that their name is not already included in any electoral roll of an Assembly or Parliamentary Constituency and that they are applying for registration as a voter for the first time.
Consequently, an individual whose name already exists in an electoral roll cannot truthfully make such a declaration merely because they have shifted their residence.
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Bench further noted that compelling the petitioners to submit Form 6 would effectively require them to make false declarations, potentially exposing them to prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Pre-Filled Enumeration Form Cannot Be Forced Upon Shifted Voters
The Court also examined the pre-filled enumeration form provided during the SIR exercise. It noted that the form contained the petitioners’ previous residential address and required them to declare that they continued to reside at that address.
Since the petitioners had already shifted to another residence, signing the declaration would have amounted to making a false statement.
The Bench observed that the authorities could not compel the petitioners to sign a declaration that was factually incorrect. It further noted that there was no mechanism through which a blank enumeration form, without the previous address, could be supplied to them at their new residence.
The Court held that insisting upon Form 6, the pre-filled enumeration form or the declaration prescribed under Annexure D of the SIR guidelines would expose the petitioners to prosecution for offences punishable under Section 31 of the Act.
SIR Process Does Not Suspend Statutory Rights Of Voters
The Division Bench also rejected the contention that the ongoing SIR exercise permitted electoral authorities to refuse applications submitted through Form 8.
It clarified that the statutory provisions governing electoral registration continue to operate even during an intensive revision of electoral rolls. The Election Commission of India and Electoral Registration Officers cannot disregard the prescribed procedure merely because the revision process is underway.
The Court further emphasised that Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act requires authorities to provide an elector with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deleting or altering an existing electoral entry in the circumstances covered by the provision.
The Bench observed that deleting the petitioners’ names despite their having submitted Form 8, without providing them an opportunity of hearing, would amount to a denial of their valuable right to vote.
High Court Directs Restoration Of Six Voters’ Names
Allowing the petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and five other family members, the Bombay High Court directed the Electoral Registration Officer of the Santa Cruz constituency to restore their names in Part 25 of the electoral roll after verifying their residence within ten days.
The Court also rejected the Election Commission’s request to keep the proceedings pending until the Supreme Court decided challenges concerning the SIR exercise in other States. It clarified that the petitioners had not challenged the validity of the SIR itself but had questioned the rejection of their Form 8 applications.
The judgment reinforces the distinction between new voter registration and the shifting of residence by an already registered elector. It also makes clear that administrative or technical difficulties in the electoral registration system cannot override statutory procedures or compel citizens to make declarations that are factually incorrect.
The ruling is significant in safeguarding the voting rights of citizens who change residences and ensuring that the SIR process is conducted in accordance with the law.
For more updates on election laws and important judicial developments, visit The Legal Observer’s National News section and watch its legal news coverage.
