Full Breakdown
Bombay High Court challenges ECI’s automated rejection of Form 8 during SIR
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The Bombay High Court’s Goa bench heard a petition by Paresh Salgaonkar and five relatives whose names were removed from the electoral roll after their Form 8 applications were automatically rejected by the Election Commission of India’s ERONET system. The hearing took place on September 30 2026. The court held that the draft roll published on December 16 2025 and the final roll on February 21 2026 could not be used to delete voters without a hearing. Judges Amit S Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes questioned the legality of the software-driven rejections.
Background & Context
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an ECI exercise to purge outdated entries and incorporate address changes before elections. Under the Representation of the People Act 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, Form 6 registers new voters, Form 7 records deletions, and Form 8 updates addresses. During SIR, Booth-Level Officers conduct house-to-house enumeration using pre-filled forms. If an elector has moved and does not submit the pre-filled form at the former address, the ERONET portal automatically rejects Form 8, directing the voter to file Form 6 instead.
Data & Statistics
- Six Salgaonkar family members were affected in Goa.
- The Goa chief electoral office reported 97 pending SIR cases, of which 88 were resolved through Form 6 submissions.
- A petition in Maharashtra alleges that the SIR could delete 2.1 crore (?21 million) names from the state’s roll.
- The court warned that “thousands” of voters could face similar exclusion.
Official Statements & Responses
The bench emphasized that statutory law cannot be overridden by software instructions.
ECI counsel Gaurish Agni argued that the commission’s guidelines permit rejection of Form 8 when the applicant’s name is absent from the draft roll, citing Supreme Court precedents. He contended that voters who had not reported address changes for eight years should use Form 6. The court rejected this, stating that forcing an existing voter to file Form 6 defeats the purpose of Form 8.
Criticism & Opposition
The judges described the ECI’s reliance on “public perception and confidence” as inappropriate in legal proceedings and expressed concern over potential disenfranchisement. Internal dissent has been reported: Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have objected to several unilateral ECI decisions related to voter registration and software controls during the SIR.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources cite differing estimates of voters at risk in Maharashtra—2.1 crore in one petition and 2 crore 10 lakh in another. The court has not quantified the actual impact, and the ECI has not provided a nationwide audit of Form 8 rejections.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Show us from the Act…what empowers you to delete without hearing?… Your officers were helpless, and they just decided to throw it on the system. So, they recorded it in the order, saying that the system has rejected. We are very perturbed by this…we are just wondering how many more who have not come to court.” — The Bench
- “We are asking the principle. The Election Commission must endeavour, and we see that is the endeavour…to have as many voters who are eligible on the rolls. Why should it reject the Form-8 if it comes during that [enumeration] period [of SIR]?” — Thursday
- “The EC has to achieve the objective of not missing out on a voter, where a voter comes forward even with a wrong form.” — The court
What’s Next
The court has scheduled a continuation of the hearing for October 5. A separate petition concerning the Maharashtra SIR is slated for October 22. Both matters remain open, with the court likely to issue directives on how the ECI must handle Form 8 applications during ongoing and future SIR exercises.