# Bombay High Court Relieves Affected Santa Cruz Family, Orders Election Commission to Restore Omitted Voter Names Within 10 Days > The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Election Commission to re-enroll 6 family members from Santa Cruz in the electoral roll within 10 days, turning down the panel's request for a stay. **Type:** article · **Category:** Politics · **Published:** 2026-11-05 · **Source:** TrendKia **Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/politics/santa-cruz-ke-pirita-parivara-ko-bombay-high-court-se-mili-bari-rahata-matadata-suchi-se-kate-nama-10-dinon-men-bahala-karane-ka-s-56978 · **Language:** English **Tags:** Bombay High Court, Goa Election Commission, Voter List, Santa Cruz Constituency, Form 8, Special Intensive Revision The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment offering relief to a family whose names were improperly omitted from the electoral rolls. The high court explicitly instructed the Election Commission to add all six family members to the voter list within a strict period of 10 days. The bench specified that the election authority must complete the physical verification of the family's residential address first and then immediately proceed with restoring their voting rights. ## Address Verification Precedes Roll Re-inclusion A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar issued the direction while granting relief to the petitioners. The court observed that a citizen's fundamental right to vote cannot be compromised due to procedural or software hurdles. The Election Commission was directed to confirm the address details of the Santa Cruz residents and execute the re-inclusion of all six individuals within the mandatory 10-day timeline. ## Petition Independent of Pending Supreme Court Matter During the proceedings, the bench clarified that while a broader matter regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is currently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this specific petition stands apart. The court observed that it was accepting the petition, noting that while the Supreme Court is examining the general framework of SIR, the present case represents an individual administrative grievance distinct from the core legal issue being heard by the apex court. ## Factual Background in Santa Cruz Constituency The dispute originates from the Santa Cruz assembly constituency in Goa, concerning Paresh Vasant Salgaonkar and five of his family members. The family had relocated their residence to a new location within the boundaries of the same Santa Cruz constituency. Following standard procedure, they consulted the local Booth Level Officer (BLO), who advised them to submit Form-8 applications to update their registered address details for all six members. ## Rejection of Form-8 and Subsequent Legal Recourse When the Election Commission published the draft voter list under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), the family discovered that none of their names appeared on the draft roll. They were subsequently informed that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) had rejected their Form-8 applications. Crucially, this rejection was communicated only after the deadline for filing claims and objections had already lapsed. The election authority then advised the family to submit Form-6 as fresh voters. The family rejected this approach, pointing out that Form-6 is intended exclusively for first-time electors, whereas Form-8 is the correct legal mechanism for updating details of existing voters. Facing an administrative dead end, the family approached the high court. ## Election Commission's Technical Defense and Software Limitations Appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, advocate Gaurish Agni defended the electoral registration process before the court. He submitted that the SIR is a comprehensive fresh process distinct from the routine Special Summary Revision (SSR). The counsel argued that because an enumeration slip was not submitted at the family's previous residence, the Commission's software could not map the Form-8 applications to their existing EPIC records, causing automated system rejections. The Commission further maintained that non-inclusion in a draft SIR roll does not strictly amount to deletion, as the earlier voter rolls serve merely as a reference baseline during intensive revisions. ## High Court Rejects Commission's Stay Application Following the pronouncement of the ruling, advocate Gaurish Agni requested the high court to stay the operation of its directive to enable the Election Commission to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar turned down the request for a stay, maintaining its firm instruction for the Commission to restore the family's names on the voter list within 10 days. ## What this means for you This judgment sets a binding legal precedent safeguarding citizens whose names are arbitrarily omitted from voter rolls due to administrative software glitches. - **Across India:** The ruling establishes that the Election Commission cannot deny voting rights based on automated system mapping failures when valid Form-8 applications are submitted. Registered voters who change addresses cannot be compelled to apply as new voters via Form-6 due to procedural oversights by election authorities. - **In Goa:** Residents across Santa Cruz and other constituencies in Goa facing deletion issues under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) now have legal precedent to demand re-inclusion. The affected family in Santa Cruz will have their voter status restored within 10 days following basic address verification. ## Why this happened This legal conflict arose from technical system glitches and administrative failures during the voter list revision process. - **Residential Relocation:** The Salgaonkar family shifted residence within the Santa Cruz constituency and submitted Form-8 as instructed by the local BLO. - **Software Mapping Failure:** The EC's SIR software failed to link the Form-8 applications to existing EPIC records due to missing enumeration slips from their previous address, leading to automated rejections. - **Lapsed Claims Window:** Election officials informed the family of the rejection only after the claims and objections window had lapsed, removing any administrative avenue for relief. - **Improper Official Advice:** The election authority advised existing registered electors to apply as fresh voters using Form-6, prompting the family to challenge the directive in the High Court. ## Questions & Answers ### 1. What order did the Bombay High Court pass against the Election Commission? The High Court ordered the Election Commission to verify the address of the 6-member Santa Cruz family and re-enroll their names in the voter list within 10 days. ### 2. Why were the family members omitted from the draft voter list? After shifting houses in Santa Cruz, they submitted Form-8, but the EC's software failed to map the forms to their old EPIC records, causing automated technical rejection. ### 3. What relief did the Election Commission seek regarding the High Court order? The EC counsel requested a stay on the order to appeal before the Supreme Court, but the High Court rejected the stay application. ### 4. What is the difference between Form-8 and Form-6? Form-8 is used by existing voters to update address or personal details, while Form-6 is meant exclusively for registering first-time electors. --- _TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._