Bombay High Court Questions ECI’s Automated Rejection of Form 8 Applications During Voter Roll Revision

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

, October,2026-The Bombay High Court at Goa has raised concerns over the Election Commission of India’s automated rejection of Form 8 applications filed by voters who have moved to a new address during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a petition by a family of five challenging the deletion of their names from the electoral rolls and the subsequent rejection of their applications to transfer their registration.

Under the ECI’s SIR procedure, Form 8 applications may be rejected where a voter has not submitted a pre-filled enumeration form at their former address.

The Commission’s position is that Form 8 is available only when the voter’s name appears on the draft roll at that address; a voter whose name has been omitted must instead seek fresh inclusion through Form 6.

The Bench questioned whether automatic rejection could frustrate the objective of maintaining an accurate and inclusive electoral roll.

It also noted that some rejection orders cited “system glitches”, suggesting that electoral officers may have had no option to process the applications differently.

The judges asked whether such applications could be kept pending rather than rejected outright.

The dispute raises a broader question: whether administrative directions issued for the SIR can affect the statutory process under the Representation of the People Act and Rules 13 and 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The Bench also observed that requiring a voter to submit an enumeration form for an address where they no longer reside could raise concerns about the declaration being made.

The ECI, relying on its constitutional powers under Article 324, defended the procedure and argued that Form 6 remained available to voters whose names were missing from the draft roll.

The Court, however, emphasized that the matter must be assessed by reference to the law, not public perception.

Arguments are scheduled to continue on October 5. The report does not indicate that the Court has issued a final ruling.