High Court of Bombay at Goa Upholds Petitioners' Rights in Electoral Roll Dispute — Violation of Natural Justice Found.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the rejection of the Petitioners' names from the Electoral Roll for the year 2026 by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), District Election Officer (DEO), and Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). The Petitioners, residents of Santa Cruz, Goa, had been voting since 1995 and sought to change their address within the same constituency. They submitted Form-8 for this purpose but faced rejection on grounds that were deemed arbitrary and without due process. The Petitioners contended that they were existing voters and thus entitled to use Form-8 for address changes, not Form-6, which is for new voters. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, concluding that the ERO failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the Petitioners to be heard before rejecting their application. The court emphasized that the ERO's actions were contrary to the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice, leading to the decision to set aside the rejection orders and uphold the Petitioners' rights to vote. The court directed that the Petitioners' names be included in the Electoral Roll for the new address.

Headnote

A) Electoral Law - Electoral Roll Revision - Validity of Form-8 Rejection - Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 22 - The Petitioners, existing voters, were denied their right to vote due to improper rejection of their Form-8 application for shifting residence. The court held that the ERO's actions violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements for processing such applications (Paras 29-34).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rejection of the Petitioners' Form-8 application for shifting residence was valid under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court set aside the orders rejecting the Petitioners' Form-8 application and directed the inclusion of their names in the Electoral Roll for Part 25 of the Santa Cruz constituency, emphasizing the violation of natural justice and statutory provisions.

Law Points

  • Electoral Roll
  • Representation of the People Act
  • 1950
  • Registration of Electors Rules
  • natural justice
  • Form-8
  • Form-6
  • shifting of residence
  • deletion of names
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (11) 66

Writ Petition No.732 of 2026

2026-11-05

Valmiki Menezes, Amit S. Jamsandekar

Vivek Rodrigues, Kevin Braganza, A. Rane Sardessai, Naresh Chandwani, Aditya Parab, G. Parwatkar, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Gaurish Agni, Yash Naik, Shourya Shubham, Clive Fernandes, Madhav Cuncoliencar, Ruchika Mishra

Paresh Salgaonkar, Haresh Salgaonkar, Rajesh Salgaonkar, Gayatri Salgaonkar, Vasanti Salgaonkar, Rajashree Salgaonkar

The State of Goa, Chief Electoral Officer, District Election Officer, Electoral Registration Officer, Assistant Electoral Registration Officer

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the rejection of names from the Electoral Roll.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of names in the Electoral Roll.

Filing Reason

Improper rejection of Form-8 application for shifting residence.

Previous Decisions

Orders by ERO, DEO, and CEO rejecting the Petitioners' applications.

Issues

Validity of rejection of Form-8 application Compliance with natural justice principles

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that Form-8 was the correct application for existing voters shifting residence. Respondents contended that Form-6 was required as the Petitioners were treated as new voters.

Ratio Decidendi

The ERO must adhere to the statutory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, ensuring that existing voters are not denied their right to vote without due process.

Judgment Excerpts

The ERO has acted in a manner contrary to both, Rule 13 and Section 22. The rejection of his application in Form 8 and refusal to deal with the objections for non-inclusion of the Petitioners’ names in the Draft Roll for Part 25 of the constituency, as shifted voters, is also done without following the principles of natural justice.

Procedural History

The Petitioners filed Form-8 for shifting residence, which was rejected by the ERO. Appeals to the DEO and CEO were also rejected, leading to the present writ petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Representation of the People Act, 1950: Section 19, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Rule 8, Rule 10, Rule 13, Rule 21A, Rule 25
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Petition in Tenancy Act Case — Violation of Natural Justice and Limitation. Deputy Collector's Suo Motu Revision After 8 Years Without Notice Set Aside.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition Against Waqf Tribunal Order in Waqf Act Dispute — Petitioner's Application Under Section 83(2) Held Maintainable Despite Pending Civil Suit. The court held that the Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisd...