‘Deleted voter filing Form 6 not false declaration’: Election Commission tells Bombay High Court amid SIR row

The Election Commission of India on Monday told the Bombay High Court that a deleted voter filing Form 6 for re-inclusion into the voter list during a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise would not amount to filing a false declaration.

The Bombay High Court was hearing a petition filed by Santa Cruz resident Paresh Salgaonkar, who, along with six family members, was removed from the draft electoral roll for changing their address within the same constituency prior to the enumeration phase. The Salgaonkars submitted Form 8, which is used for address changes or correcting entries in the existing voter roll, on December 2, 2025, two days before the initial deadline of the enumeration phase. Their names were also missing in the final roll that came out on February 21.

Also Read I ‘Who modified Form 6?’: SC seeks record from EC over voter form changes

‘If citizens excluded, what will we do with SIR?’

The court questioned whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission for this was in consonance with the Representation of the People’s Act and its provisions for revision exercises.

“If citizens are excluded what will we do with your SIR? If citizens are being removed from the list then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process then?” the bench comprising of justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar, said.

Adv Gaurish Agni, representing the ECI, told the Court that once the final roll is notified it is “as though the roll is starting completely afresh.”

“The old roll goes out of the window once the new roll is notified. The old roll of 2002 is gone. That can’t form the basis of any transfer forms. The whole perspective changes when we treat this as if this is the first roll,” Adv Agni told the High Court.

He stated that the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, are to treat a special intensive revision “as though we are preparing the roll for the first time.” “The previous roll only serves as a database for getting data for preparing the enumeration roll,” he said.

Salgaonkar's opposition to filing Form 6

Referring to the case of Paresh Salgaonkar, the Election Commission argued that it was not possible for them to have accepted his Form 8 since “his name was already deleted from the draft roll.” “If you have not submitted the enumeration form, the name gets deleted from the draft roll. If his name is not there in the draft roll. Form 8 cannot be submitted independently when your name is not on the draft roll,” he said.

The HC, countered, saying that effectively in the SIR “you are not removing people from the draft roll but effectively from the existing roll... Your argument now is that since SIR is underway, we shouldn’t look at the existing roll and only focus on the draft roll... We just cannot ignore the existing list,” the bench said.

The HC also said that since Salgaonkar was changing his address but staying as a voter in his own constituency, filing Form 6 would amount to submitting a false declaration. Form 6 is used registering a new voter.

“No [existing] voter should sign this. We’re saying they should not sign this,” the bench countered.

Also Read I 'Serving his political bosses’: Dipke sharpens attack against Gyanesh Kumar as SC denies approving Form 6 changes

ECI, however, told the court that Salgaonkar would be “applying for inclusion” and submitting a declaration that his name is not in any other constituency was not an untrue statement. “He’s in the same constituency. He has changed the part. He is a new voter in a new part,” Adv Agni added.

Salgaonkar approached the HC after he was told his only option was to file Form 6 to enter the voter roll. His appeals before the District Election Officer and Chief Electoral Officer were both rejected after the final roll was declared. Salgaonkar has refused to fill Form 6, saying that doing so would amount to filing a false declaration stating that he’s neither a first-time voter nor had shifted from another constituency. Neither of the two mandatory options was applicable in his case, he alleged.