From Our Correspondent
NEW DELHI: Ninety-seven electors in Goa whom the state’s own Electoral Registration Officers examined and found eligible after a Supreme Court-directed hearing process were still missing from the final electoral roll when it was last checked on September 20 — seven months after publication on February 21.
An Indian Express investigation found that Goa officials sent eight emails in seven days in mid-February asking Delhi to enable a rollback on ECINet so that earlier Form-7 deletions could be reversed. The facility was not enabled before the final roll went out. Sixty-five of the 97 names are from Taleigao; the rest from St Cruz, Cumbarjua, Priol, Margao, Benaulim and Velim.
Goa CEO Sanjay Goel said the state had “apprised the ECI about the cases to be included wherein voters were flagged for logical discrepancies.” Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar wrote on February 18 that the IT system “cannot block necessary action as per the directions of SC.” The Commission later told India Today that ECINet has no rollback once Form 7 is used to delete a name.
In Goa, being off the roll costs more than a vote. The Goa Mediclaim Scheme, which funds dialysis, angioplasty, open-heart surgery, transplants, chemotherapy and cochlear implants not available in government hospitals, is open only to voters of the state. Some of the 97 were told to apply afresh on Form 6.
The Goa case landed on a second track from Delhi: Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 written objections over ten months to steps they said were taken without their knowledge — including Form 6 changes and centralised control of the roll database. The Election Commission has said SIR-related decisions were unanimous.
Former Chief Election Commissioners have treated the reported rupture as rare. O.P. Rawat said: “This is an unfortunate situation. Such a thing has perhaps rarely happened in the Election Commission. I have also been there, but I saw that decisions were always taken unanimously.” On the reported change to statutory Form 6, he said the manner of amendment was “absolutely wrong and illegal.” On the revision itself he added: “Through SIR, it has created a kind of Frankenstein which has created fear in the minds of voters everywhere. This is not good. It is very unfortunate for our democracy.” He also said public trust in the institution appeared to be “breaking down entirely.”
S.Y. Quraishi wrote that “the Commission is a three-member constitutional body. It is not another name for its Chairman,” and that “a letterhead cannot supply authority that the statute withholds.” He asked whether decisions taken without the knowledge of two Commissioners were decisions of the Commission at all. “If the entire exercise of revising the electoral rolls has been illegal, then you cannot hold an election on the basis of an illegal electoral roll,” he said, adding that if a mistake had occurred there was “a legal possibility of going back to the status quo ante… If they can go back to 2002, why not go back to 2025?” He called for all three Commissioners to explain the record together in public, and wrote: “Where the Commission will not act, the Supreme Court will have to step in.” Former EC Ashok Lavasa has also sought public clarity on the same disclosures.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, after the Express reports, said: “Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution.” Jairam Ramesh cited the eight Goa emails and the restricted ERO access to ECINet. The Commission has not accepted the charge that the process was compromised.
Separately, a two-judge Supreme Court bench referred challenges to the 2023 CEC appointment law — which replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister — to the CJI for a possible Constitution Bench. The 2023 Act followed the Anoop Baranwal judgment, which had prescribed a PM–LoP–CJI panel until Parliament legislated.
The immediate tests remain narrower: whether the 97 names are restored, whether software can overrule an ERO after a hearing, and whether the Commission answers the questions now on record from two sitting Commissioners and two former CECs.