A 41-year-old resident of the Santa Cruz constituency in North Goa, Paresh Salgaoncar, who is employed in the private sector, does not regard himself as a “fighter.” Nevertheless, his legal challenge has gained prominence amidst the complexities of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court expressed its concern regarding the suspension of rules and questioned the number of individuals who may have been affected yet did not approach the court. The court emphasized the necessity for the ECI to ensure that all eligible voters are included in the electoral rolls.
Salgaoncar’s motivation for taking legal action stemmed from a desire to remain truthful in a situation where he felt the system was compelling him to provide misleading information. He feared that others might be experiencing similar difficulties.
In his particular case, six members of his family had their names removed from the final electoral roll due to rejected Form 8 applications for their address change during the SIR process. Having participated in various elections since 2003, including panchayat, state, and Lok Sabha elections, Salgaoncar expressed frustration, stating, “The ECI is insisting that I submit Form 6 for new voters, which is incorrect given my circumstances. This demand contradicts my principles. Software limitations and ECI policies should not undermine legal standards. I believe many others are likely to face similar name deletions due to this technical issue.”
Salgaoncar and his family relocated from Part No. 29 to Part No. 25 within the North Goa constituency over eight years ago. When he learned in November of last year that house-to-house enumeration for the SIR was underway, he approached the Booth Level Officer (BLO) of his previous ward to obtain the necessary forms.
The BLO advised him that, since they no longer resided at that address, they should request a change of address during the enumeration process. Following this, on November 12, 2025, Salgaoncar contacted the BLO of their new ward, who instructed them to complete Form 8 for the address change. He and his family complied, submitting the forms, after which the BLO confirmed he had uploaded them to the ECI portal on December 8, indicating that their applications had been processed.
Salgaoncar received an SMS from the ECI acknowledging the submission. However, upon the publication of the draft electoral roll on December 16, he discovered that his family’s names were absent. After consulting with both BLOs, he was reassured that their Form 8 applications had been acknowledged and would be included in the final electoral roll.
Yet, on January 21, after the deadline for claims and objections had passed, Salgaoncar received an automated message stating that their Form 8 applications had been rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). He learned that processing had ceased on October 27, 2025. “They informed me that our voter ID had been deleted due to our relocation and that Form 8 applications could no longer be processed,” he recounted. “The only option provided was to file Form 6, as there was no capability in the ECI’s software to review or reinstate deleted voter IDs.”
When the final electoral roll was released in February 2026, Salgaoncar and his family were again not listed. In response, he lodged a complaint through the National Grievance Service Portal of the ECI and reached out to the Chief Electoral Officer’s office for clarification regarding their Form 8 rejections, only to receive similar responses indicating their names had been moved to the Absent, Shift, Duplicate, Dead (ASDD) voters’ list and subsequently deleted.
Frustrated, Salgaoncar questioned, “I don’t understand what I did wrong. Form 6 is designed for new voters, and I didn’t submit it because that would have been a false declaration. It goes against my ethical standards. Citizens should not be penalized due to systemic errors. Who has granted them the authority to delete individuals without prior notice or a hearing? This is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.”
Salgaoncar then filed an appeal with the district election officer for North Goa and another with the CEO. In one response, officials indicated that their Form 8 applications were rejected because the window for address changes had been closed during the enumeration phase.
He raised concerns about the lack of public communication regarding this closure. “If the window was closed, why wasn’t it communicated at the start? What procedures were in place for individuals who moved during the enumeration period? If there is an error in the system, my Form 8 should be acknowledged instead of being forced to submit Form 6, which infringes on people’s rights to change residences during this process.”
Ultimately, in May, Salgaoncar filed a petition with the High Court. “They are directing me to submit Form 6 as if I were a new voter, which is not accurate. This could lead to future conflicts. For example, if the government later ties citizenship issues or benefits to voting records, my previous voting history would be lost, which is a significant concern for me,” he articulated.
Pavneet Singh Chadha serves as the Goa Correspondent for The Indian Express, focusing on critical developments in politics, governance, and local events in Goa, demonstrating his extensive expertise and authority in the region.
His coverage offers a thorough understanding of Goa’s political, social, and cultural dynamics, ensuring readers receive timely and localized information.
