Bombay High Court Questions ECI on Automated Voter Form Rejections

So Weber • October 2, 2026 • 2 min read

Bombay High Court questions ECI on automated voter form 8 rejections, ruling the automated system unconstitutional and violating the right to vote.

Bombay High Court Questions ECI on Automated Voter Form Rejections - automated voter form rejections — Under the ECI’s SIR framework, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) use pre-filled forms from previous voter databases to conduct house-to-house enumeration.

The Bombay High Court at Goa has raised concerns about the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) automated system for rejecting voter form 8 applications during a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court heard a plea filed by a family of five in Goa, which challenged the deletion of their names and the rejection of their address change requests Paresh Salgaonkar & Ors v. State of Goa & Ors..

Why form 8 is being rejected

Under the ECI’s SIR framework, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) use pre-filled forms from previous voter databases to conduct house-to-house enumeration. If an elector has moved and does not submit an enumeration form at their old address, their name is omitted from the draft roll. When these shifted voters file form 8 to update their registration, the ECI’s portal and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) automatically reject the application. The commission contends that form 8 requires an active entry on the draft roll at the former address; without it, the voter must instead file form 6 for fresh inclusion during the claims and objections period.

According to ECI counsel Gauresh Agni, the commission possesses the authority to reject form 8 if a voter’s name is missing from the draft roll. He argued that “if the enumeration form is not there, form 8 has to be rejected,” noting that the power of acceptance includes the power of rejection. The bench questioned whether such automatic rejections defeat the ultimate objective of maintaining an inclusive voter roll.

Legal challenges to the rejection process

The bench observed that the current requirement forces relocated voters to sign a pre-filled enumeration form for their former residence, compelling them to make a false declaration. The legal controversy centers on whether administrative guidelines issued by the ECI during the SIR exercise can effectively suspend or alter statutory mechanics governed by the Representation of the People Act and Rules 13 and 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

While ECI counsel cited Supreme Court precedents from past SIR drives in Bihar, arguing that Article 324 grants the commission broad supervisory powers to streamline procedure, the bench took a different view. The court took exception to the ECI invoking public perception and confidence in the electoral exercise to support its revision framework. “What the public thinks about all of us is immaterial. We are dealing here in a court,” the judge said, making it clear that court proceedings are governed strictly by legal provisions rather than external opinion.

The bench suggested that routine updations using birth and death registries would avoid long gaps between revisions and asked the ECI to reconcile its policies. Arguments in the case will continue on October 5.