'No Business Asking Them to Fill Form 6 Because System Didn't Allow Form 8': Bombay HC Condemns ECI's Handling of SIR Process

New Delhi: The Bombay high court once again reprimanded the Election Commission of India (ECI) severely for its handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a day after it came down heavily on the commission for its removal of six members of a Goa family from the voter roll despite them having submitted Form 8. The court, on Tuesday (September 29), had chastised the ECI for its faulty software, which the commission had cited as being incapable of processing Form 8 applications, notifying address changes, during the enumeration phase of the SIR.

The petitioners, Paresh Salgaoncar and five members of his family, said they had moved to a new house in the same constituency prior to the commencement of the SIR and had been asked to submit form 8 to reflect the same by the booth level officer. When these form were being processed no record of the petitioners' Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) were found, leading to their deletion.

On Wednesday (September 30), a division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar said it was "perturbed" by the ECI's management of the SIR process, reported Times of India. Talking about the provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1950, and Registration of Voter Rules, the bench said, "SIR effectively by whatever instructions, has suspended the full system. It suspends Section 22, Rule 21A and all those rules and says forget about all the laws. Now you follow the software. It cannot be like this. What is the explanation for this?"

Questioning the legality of the removal of the Santa Cruz family from the voter list without a hearing, the bench noted, "Show us from the Act where it empowers you to delete without hearing. If you are planning to remove someone's name, you have to give the person an opportunity of hearing first."

The court reiterated its concerns of potential disenfranchisement of numerous voters because of malfunctioning ERONET software. "At all points of time, as we understand, the law should work. The electoral registration officer (ERO) must have the key of the software, call it a code, call it whatever key to software to open it or enter or delete pursuant to his order, with him. It cannot be with a third person," it said, per the TOI report.

It also rejected the ECI's counsel's defence that the deletion had occurred due to shortcomings in the software, stating that this amounted to keeping the Representation of People Act, 1950, and Registration of Voter Rules in abeyance. "Then you are suspending the Act and the Rules also by starting some completely alien procedure…the effect is you are temporarily saying we are giving a go by to the Rules and Act…they don't exist, we will do out own thing," the bench said.

It added, "We are very perturbed by this and the effect of this. Here are six voters. We are wondering how many more there are who have not come to court."

To this, advocate Gaurish Agni, appearing for the ECI, argued that other voters who had been removed under similar circumstances had been reinstated to the polls after submitting Form 6. He pointed out that the petitioner and his family has not submitted Form 6, even after been asked to do so.

According to TOI, the bench replied, "You have no business asking them to fill Form 6 because the system didn't allow you to do it on Form 8. That was the problem."

The bench said: “SIR, first of all, doesn’t fit as a standalone proceeding. SIR has to fit basically under Rule 13 read with Section 22. You can conduct as many revisions as you want but even if there's no revision being conducted, any elector new or who is moving from one ward or part to another can under Form 6,7,8 present it at any time. There are no fetters under the Act. All we are saying is when revision comes, it cannot override these provisions."

"You cannot delete anybody without hearing. That's the law as we understood it," it added.

Goa's chief electoral office gives explanation for 97 cases not included in February 2026 rolls

After the ECI's SIR process in Goa raised serious concerns over the 97 cases that were reportedly left out the voter rolls published in February 2026, Goa's chief electoral office, in a statement released on X on Thursday (October 1), provided a breakdown of the 97 voter cases requiring further verification or action.

In a previous statement on September 24, the office had said that the 97 cases "were separately processed through house-to-house visits by BLOs for completion of form 6." It added that many had since been enrolled, while remaining cases were being processed.

In its latest post, the office shared that 88 of these cases have now been resolved, with the voters having submitted form 6. Meanwhile, three cases concerned individuals with a Portuguese passport, with six others presently outside of India.

The office added that it was making efforts to contact individuals outside of India to carry out the "necessary action."

For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.