The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Goa, Sanjay Goel, has sought the dismissal of a petition filed before the High Court by St. Cruz resident Paresh Salgaonkar and five of his family members, who are challenging the removal of their names from the state’s electoral roll. In his affidavit, CEO has countered that the matter is technically one of “non-inclusion” in the Draft Electoral Roll, not active deletion.



The dispute arises from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2026 of the electoral roll. Salgaonkar, who says he has voted continuously in the St. Cruz Assembly constituency since 1995, alleges that his name was wrongly excluded. His core claims are that his Form 8 application for address shifting was unjustly rejected by officials citing “no record of EPIC,” and that he was unfairly directed to enroll afresh as a “new voter.”



The petitioners further contend that the deletion of their names violated due process, as it was carried out without mandatory prior notice, on-ground verification, or a meaningful hearing as required under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. They are seeking High Court directives to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Goa CEO to either restore their electoral entries or, alternatively, process their Form 8 claims on merits, along with orders to maintain status quo to protect Salgaonkar’s electoral history.



In his affidavit, CEO Sanjay Goel countered that the matter is technically one of “non-inclusion” in the Draft Electoral Roll, not active deletion. He outlined strict adherence to ECI instructions issued in 2025 for the SIR 2026 process. The state prepared pre-filled enumeration forms for every elector whose name appeared on the roll as of October 27, 2025.



According to the CEO, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were tasked with conducting house-to-house enumeration and delivering forms strictly to the addresses recorded in the existing Electoral Roll. Salgaonkar’s recorded address fell under Part No. 29 of the roll, but he had permanently moved to a new rented residence under Part No. 25.



The CEO’s affidavit states that the BLO correctly refused to hand the enumeration form to Salgaonkar personally at any other location, as delivery is restricted to the recorded address. Salgaonkar also failed to submit the required form through the BLO or via the ECI’s online portal before the December 11, 2025 enumeration deadline, resulting in his exclusion from the Draft Electoral Roll published on December 16, 2025. Consequently, his name was placed on the ASDD (Absent/Shifted/Dead/Duplicate) list, with reasons cited for non-submission.



Goel also defended the rejection of Salgaonkar’s Form 8 application, filed on December 8, 2025. Since Form 8 is meant exclusively to modify or transpose an existing electoral entry, the Election Registration Officer (ERO) could not process the application because Salgaonkar’s name was absent from the newly drafted roll. Furthermore, Goel noted that Salgaonkar failed to properly update his registration after permanently shifting residences, arguing that this violated the conditions of being an “ordinarily resident” under Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The CEO dismissed Salgaonkar’s reliance on Section 20(1A) of the Act, emphasizing that the petitioner had admitted to a permanent relocation rather than a temporary absence.



The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on Tuesday.