Goa has long prided itself on peaceful elections and a relatively clean electoral process. Our small state values each vote, for every name on the list carries weight in a place where margins can be tight and communities know one another well. Yet the recent revelations about deep internal discord within the Election Commission of India leave many of us uneasy. What began as routine revision of voter rolls has exposed fractures that raise serious questions about fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the institution meant to safeguard our democracy.
The Indian Express investigation published today lays bare an unsettling picture. Over ten months, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded at least fourteen objections to decisions taken under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These objections touched the core of voter registration, deletions, restorations, and control over the digital systems that hold our electoral data. Some actions were described as unauthorised and illegal. The two commissioners even wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and later set aside a work allocation order that they believed removed necessary oversight of the technology backbone. The Commission has responded that differing views are normal and that final decisions were unanimous. Still, the volume and seriousness of the recorded concerns cannot be dismissed lightly.
For Goans, these developments feel particularly close. Reports have pointed to technical glitches arising from centralised digital controls that led to the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters in our state, even when higher court directions existed to protect their inclusion. When local electoral registration officers find their authority diluted by systems managed far away in Delhi, the risk of error grows. In a state as compact as Goa, such mistakes are not abstract. They affect real people, neighbours, and families who may discover too late that their names have vanished from the rolls.
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral lists was presented as a necessary clean up. In practice, it has removed vast numbers of names across the country and generated widespread anxiety. When two members of the three member Commission itself question changes to Form 6, the manner of filing appeals, and the gradual centralisation of voter data, ordinary citizens are entitled to ask whether the process remains impartial. Centralisation may promise efficiency, yet it also concentrates power and reduces the ability of state level officers to correct mistakes quickly. For Goa, where local knowledge of residence and community is strong, distant control can become a source of alienation rather than improvement.
The political reactions that followed the report have been sharp. Opposition leaders have demanded the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner and a halt to the revision exercise. The ruling party has defended the Commission and described internal notes as healthy deliberation. Amid this noise, what matters most to Goans is not partisan point scoring but the quiet assurance that every eligible citizen can vote and that no name is removed without proper process and local scrutiny.
Democracy rests on trust. When that trust is strained by reports of decisions taken without full knowledge of the Commission’s own members, the damage spreads beyond party lines. Goa has seen its share of electoral controversies over the years, yet we have usually been able to rely on the institutional framework. The present crisis tests that reliance. It is time for greater openness about how decisions are made, stronger safeguards against unilateral action, and renewed respect for the multi-member character of the Election Commission. Only then can citizens in Goa and across India feel confident that the ballot remains free, fair, and truly theirs.
