PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has ruled that technical restrictions in the ECI’s system cannot prevent an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) from processing applications during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
In its 42-page judgment, the Division Bench questioned the absence of blank enumeration forms for voters who shifted residence. It said pre-filled forms carrying their old address could force false declarations and expose them to prosecution.
“The Declarations that the Petitioner (Paresh Salgaonkar) was called upon to give, in the pre-filled 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,” the court said.
It set aside rejection of Form 8 applications of six Santa Cruz family members and directed the ERO to include their names in Part 25 after verifying residence within 10 days.
They filed Form 8 through the BLO on November 12, 2025. The BLO uploaded it on December 8, but the draft roll published on December 16 omitted their names. The ERO rejected the applications on January 21, after claims closed on January 19.
ERONET returned “no record to EPIC details was found” and the ERO’s login offered only the option to “reject”. The court questioned why the officer did not process the physical applications by overriding the system.
“No reason is assigned why Form 8 of the Petitioners was not dealt with at least after 19.01.2026, in its physical form, by overriding the system,” the order said.
The Court also found that the ERO gave no reasons, passed no formal order and denied a hearing. It held that Form 8 applied to existing voters shifting residence; they could not be treated as new voters required to submit Form 6.
