Eight Indian men, including a Labour Party member, were found guilty in 2014 of forging election documents leading up to the Auckland Super City elections.

An Indian man who forged a signature on an election enrolment form will not be sent back to his home country from New Zealand.

Mandeep Singh was convicted in 2013 of using a forged document, after he signed a voting form on behalf of a friend and put down his address as his own.

The action was an attempt to help Labour Party member and Sikh leader Daljit Singh in his bid for a seat on the Otara-Papatoetoe local board in Auckland.

Several other people were also convicted on similar charges.

READ MORE:

* Eight face High Court over electoral fraud

* Sikh leader denies election fraud

* Sikh leader escapes jail

After being sentenced to 200 hours' community work, Mandeep Singh was issued with a deportation order.

But he appealed the decision to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, claiming it would be traumatic for his family to have to uproot their life and return to India.

In his evidence before the tribunal, he said he had arrived in New Zealand in 2006 to marry his wife who was a citizen and had been in the country since 2000.

The couple had a four-year-old daughter and were well-settled in New Zealand with their extended family also residing in the country.

If he was sent back to India his wife and daughter would join them, but it would be a tough life for them and his daughter would not have access to the same quality of education and healthcare.

In her decision tribunal member Virginia Shaw said although Singh could return to India and live on the family farm in Punjab, he would essentially be starting his life again.

"If the appellant has to stay in India he will be permanently separated from the majority of his family.

"This would be a significant loss for him because active participation in the life of his wider family is important to him and contributes to his overall well-being."

His wife had lived in New Zealand since the age of 11 and considered the country her home.

She would also be separated from her extended family and had great concerns for the welfare of her daughter, she said.

"It is a significant step indeed for the tribunal to confirm a revocation order where the effect on an innocent and dependent child is either the loss of the practical benefits and rights of citizenship or the disintegration of the family unit...in this context the state owes a duty to protect the interests of a citizen such as a child who is in a position of special vulnerability."

For these reasons the appeal was allowed.