Bombay High Court at Goa asks the Election Commission what law allows deleting a voter without a hearing

A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa is hearing a petition over names deleted during the Special Intensive Revision after, the petitioners say, they filed Form 8. Neutral Politics checked The New Indian Express, with PTI inputs, The Times of India in Goa, The Indian Express and The Wire. The accounts were checked on 3 October 2026 (IST). This note was posted at 8:25 am IST that morning. The bench's words below are remarks in hearings. They are not a final judgment. No report says the case is decided.

The bench is Justices Amit S. Jamsandekar and Valmiki Menezes. The petition is by six members of a family in Santa Cruz, led by Paresh Salgaonkar. The Indian Express also spells the name Salgaoncar. They say they moved house within the constituency, filed Form 8 on the booth officer's advice, and were deleted during the revision. They say ERONET, the commission's forms system, had no record of their elector photo identity cards, leaving only "reject," and that they were asked to file Form 6. That is the petitioners' account, as The New Indian Express and The Indian Express report it.

Form 6 is for the fresh inclusion of a name. Form 8 is for an existing voter who shifts residence. The New Indian Express and The Times of India draw that line.

The New Indian Express reports that the bench said a draft SIR roll cannot be the basis to delete names without the statutory procedure. It asked the Election Commission to "Show us from the Act" what allows a deletion without a hearing. The Times of India and The Wire also report that question, and all three report that the bench said it was "very perturbed." The New Indian Express page carries an updated stamp of 6:50 am IST on 1 October, on a URL dated 2 October. The Times of India story, by Lisa Monteiro, is timed at 1:14 pm IST on 1 October and places a hearing on Wednesday. The Indian Express story, by Pavneet Singh Chadha, is timed at 4:45 am IST on 2 October and places a hearing on Thursday. The Wire, timed at 2:52 pm IST on 2 October, credits The New Indian Express.

The Times of India reports that the bench said SIR instructions say "follow the software," and that the Act must be followed. The Indian Express reports that the bench asked why Form 8 is rejected rather than kept pending until the roll is final. The Times of India also reports that the electoral registration officer was directed to be present. That direction is in that report alone among the accounts used here.

Counsel for the commission, Gaurish Agni, said the system did not permit Form 8 processing during the revision, and that the commission had no intention to delete anybody on purpose. That is The Times of India's report of the reply. The Indian Express reports counsel citing SIR guidelines that allow only Form 6 for a name off the draft roll.

A next hearing on 5 October 2026 is reported by LiveLaw, Bar and Bench and The Tribune, and The Wire also, as checked for this note. What that hearing records is not yet a fact.

The cover is a stock photograph of a wooden gavel from Pixabay, listed as gavel-wood-courtroom-legal-law-1017953, under the Pixabay Content License. It is not a photograph of this court or this case.

What's next

What is not known yet is the court's final word, how many other voters are affected, and what is said on 5 October.