Today, the Bombay High Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to restore the names of five members of a family in the final electoral roll in Goa after they were deleted during the recently concluded Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar allowed a petition filed by the Salgaonkar family and directed the Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the Santacruz constituency to include the petitioners' names in the voter list within 10 days.

The bench rejected the ECI's request to defer the hearing on the ground that the SIR process was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. It clarified that the present petition concerned a separate issue.

The court also refused to stay the operation of its order for two weeks, as requested by the ECI. .

The petitioners had approached the High Court claiming that their names had been deleted from the draft electoral roll despite submitting Form 8, which is used to update a voter's address.

The ECI, however, argued that under the SIR guidelines, voters were required to submit a pre-filled enumeration form along with Form 8. Since the petitioners had declined to submit the enumeration form, they were asked to fill Form 6, which is used for fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.

The bench questioned the ECI's insistence on the enumeration form, observing that it contained a declaration stating that the voter continued to reside at the address mentioned in the existing electoral roll.

The judges pointed out that a person who had shifted residence could not be compelled to make a false declaration merely to update their address. They observed that since the petitioners' names were already part of the existing electoral roll, they could simply submit Form 8 to report the change of address.

Justice Menezes had earlier questioned why voters seeking an address change should be required to submit a pre-filled enumeration form when they could directly approach the authorities under Rule 12, which provides for filing objections and related claims.

The bench had also remarked that the ECI could not compel citizens to sign a declaration stating that they continued to reside at an address where they no longer lived. It questioned how such voters could be asked to seek fresh inclusion in a constituency when their names were already on the existing electoral roll.