New Delhi: The Bombay high court on Thursday (November 5) held that citizens cannot be made to use Form 6 to make corrections in their address or other particulars while the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was underway. It said citizens cannot be compelled to enter falsehoods which open them up to criminal legal action.A division bench of the court’s Goa bench, presided over by Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar, made the observations while hearing the Salgaonkar family’s petition, reports Live Law.“We reject any contention of the Election Commission that during the process of a SIR, the Electoral Registration Officer is within the law to refuse giving effect to Form 8 whilst the revision is underway,” said the Bench.The court has cleared the six members of the Santa Cruz, Goa-based Salgaonkar family to be re-introduced on the electoral roll of the state. They had been removed from the voter list during the SIR despite having submitted Form 8 to alert the state authorities of a change in their address.The family had shifted to a new house within the same Santa Cruz assembly constituency. They were later asked to fill Form 6, which they refused to do.“The declarations that the petitioner was called upon to give, in the prefilled enumeration form or in Form 6 or in the form provided in the Annexure D to the SIR, would all result in the same being false and rendering the Petitioners open to prosecution for offences punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act,” the court said.The court had earlier made adverse remarks about how the Election Commission of India (ECI) was conducting the SIR in Goa, after te ECI had said that its software (ERONET) did not allow citizens to update changes in their particulars using Form 8 – the correct form for such purposes – during the SIR’s enumeration phase.The bench had then said that it was “very perturbed” by this claim and sought an explanation from the poll body about the rejection of Form 8 applications by its software during the SIR.On Thursday, the judges said that the removal of a name of an elector from the revised roll after they have already submitted Form 8 for shifting of residence within the same constituency, and “that too without affording them any hearing, would amount to denial of the citizen’s right to vote”, Live Law reports.Also read: Delhi SIR: Petitioners Say ECI’s Advice Asking Deleted Voters to Fill Form 6 Contradicts SC’s Form 8 ObservationDuring the course of the hearings in the high court, which began in early 2026, the petitioners informed the court that they had submitted Form 8, as directed by the booth level officer, to update their address but upon processing the applications, officials found that their voter card details were no longer available in the ERONET system.As a result, officials could only select the “reject” option, the petitioners said.To solve this problem, the family was asked to submit Form 6, a document meant for inclusion of new names in the electoral roll. The petitioners argued that this was inappropriate as they were existing voters seeking only a change of address, within the same constituency.The bench agreed that this was improper, observing during an earlier hearing that the statutory forms would lose their purpose if voters could be deleted over software issues and forced to apply afresh. “Otherwise, Form 6, 7 or 8 have no meaning,” the court had said.“He was never a new voter. He was an existing voter. He became new for your system,” the court observed, adding that this was “only one family”. “Take a situation where there are so many people who have shifted residence,” the judges had said, raising concerns over widespread discrepancies.The Salgaonkar family was also not given a chance for a hearing before they were deleted from the voter list. This, combined with the ERO’s refusal to reinstate them, had ultimately prompted Paresh Salgaonkar to approach the high court for relief.The bench on Thursday relied on Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950, along with Rules 13 and 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. While Section 22 empowers the ERO to correct electoral entries, move an elector’s information to another place in the roll on account of a change in ordinary residence, or delete a name in specified circumstances, the proviso to this section requires the ERO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking such action.“Had the petitioners filled in Form 6, in the circumstances referred above, they would be making a false declaration that their name did not exist in any Electoral Roll and that they were applying for inclusion in an Electoral Roll for the first time,” the court said on Thursday.ECI’s position differsAs of November 3, the Form 6 controversy has taken a new turn as far as the ECI is concerned. While it has changed its online application process, it still insists that previously registered voters can use Form 6 if their names are missing from the draft electoral rolls. It said in a recent clarification to all EROs that the declaration using Form 6 instead of 8 will not be considered false “merely because” the voter was previously on an electoral roll.As The Wire reported, the ECI cited a Delhi high court order from October that any voter’s apprehension of a false declaration is “misplaced” based on the poll body’s counsel’s suggestion to fill Form 6 for reinclusion. However, it did not mention the Supreme Court’s observations from a week earlier questioning the use of Form 6 for re-enrollment of voters already on the last electoral roll.It also does not mention that the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in Maharashtra sent a proposal to the EC to amend Form 6 so that voters deleted during SIR can apply to get back on the electoral roll without declaring that they are enrolling “for the first time,” citing hurdles being faced by officials on the ground in getting voters to re-apply due to the declaration.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.