The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday told the Bombay high court that a voter’s name missing from the draft electoral roll prepared during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) does not automatically imply deletion. The court reserved its judgment on a writ petition filed by a Goa resident.Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the ECI, told the Goa bench that the SIR involves preparing the electoral roll afresh, unlike a Special Summary Revision (SSR), which focuses on updating an existing list.The bench, comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar, reserved its verdict after hearing arguments in the matter. The hearing took place amid an ongoing controversy over the SIR exercise and the functioning of the ECI.Paresh Salgaonkar and five members of his family, who live in the St Cruz constituency of North Goa district, had approached the court alleging that their names were removed from the electoral roll during the revision process.
ECI clarifies the nature of the SIR exercise
Kumbhakoni submitted that an SIR is a comprehensive, de novo exercise in which the electoral roll is prepared from scratch. In contrast, a summary revision updates the existing electoral roll on the basis of information received through the prescribed procedure.“Absence from the draft SIR roll does not automatically amount to deletion,” the ECI lawyer said, maintaining that a name missing from a draft list being prepared afresh could not technically be described as deleted.The lawyer further argued that the petitioner had allegedly not lived at the address recorded in the electoral rolls before the SIR for eight to 10 years. He also contended that the petitioner had not applied for an address change before the revision exercise began.“In fact, my lord, this is a classical case which shows the effectiveness of SIR,” Kumbhakoni told the court.According to the news agency PTI, the judges observed that they had made it clear from the outset that the petition did not challenge the SIR process itself.
Petitioner’s lawyer recounts timeline of events
Advocate Vivek Rodrigues, representing the petitioner, detailed the events surrounding the enumeration exercise and the subsequent absence of the petitioner’s name from the draft electoral roll.Rodrigues said the enumeration process began on November 4, 2025. The Booth Level Officer (BLO) visited both the petitioner’s former and current addresses on November 8.On November 12, the petitioner contacted the BLO to request an enumeration form. However, the officer declined, saying the form had to be delivered to the address listed in the electoral roll, which was the petitioner’s previous residence.The petitioner later submitted Form 8 to seek a change of address. The ECI acknowledged receipt of the application on December 8, 2025. However, the petitioner’s name was absent when the draft electoral roll was published on December 16, Rodrigues told the court.The BLO subsequently informed the petitioner that the Form 8 application was still being processed and had not been rejected.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Form 8 rejected after deadline for objections
Rodrigues said the petitioner received a letter from the ECI on January 17, 2026, informing him that his address-change application had been forwarded to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).The final date for submitting objections to the draft electoral roll was January 19. However, the petitioner’s application was rejected on January 21, after the deadline had passed.“On January 21, my application is rejected. So I am neither in the boat nor in the canoe, left in the sea,” Rodrigues argued before the bench.
Leave a Reply