“More complex is the question surrounding the two point two lakh voters whose names or family lineage cannot be traced back to the 2002 rolls. They will appear provisionally in the draft but will need to submit proof of citizenship. Goa’s history of migration, layered identities and cross border ties makes this a sensitive exercise. Many families, especially in rural or coastal areas, may not have complete documentation. The intention to verify citizenship is valid, but officials must ensure that the process does not become arbitrary or burdensome. The strength of the Election Commission’s credibility depends on measured handling of this phase.
The identification of nearly eighteen hundred duplicate registrations is another reminder of how voter lists can drift from accuracy. Duplicate voting is a criminal offence and deserves firm enforcement.”
Goa’s ongoing overhaul of its electoral rolls has drawn unusually sharp attention for an administrative exercise that usually unfolds quietly. Yet the stakes are clear. With nearly ninety thousand voter entries flagged as absent, shifted, deceased or duplicated during the Special Intensive Revision, the state is confronting a long overdue reality check. The numbers are striking, and when placed in the context of Goa’s tight electoral margins and lingering concerns about bogus voting, they take on deeper meaning.
The revision began in early November and has involved a sweeping verification effort that required booth level officers to visit more than eleven lakh registered voters. Officials say they collected and digitised more than ninety six percent of the forms. This strong response rate suggests the exercise has been more participatory than many expected. Still, the headline figure of ninety thousand names likely to be dropped from the draft rolls is bound to raise questions. Some will see room for political manipulation. Others will welcome it as necessary correction. Both reactions reflect genuine concerns.
Clean and reliable rolls are central to any democracy. An inflated list erodes public trust and creates opportunities for malpractice. At the same time, removing names without careful verification can disenfranchise legitimate voters, including the elderly, migrants and tenants who are often hardest to trace. The CEO has said that deletions were proposed only after multiple failed attempts to contact individuals or after confirmation of death or ineligibility. That assurance matters, but it must be backed by transparency. Publishing the list and allowing objections through Form 6 is essential.
More complex is the question surrounding the two point two lakh voters whose names or family lineage cannot be traced back to the 2002 rolls. They will appear provisionally in the draft but will need to submit proof of citizenship. Goa’s history of migration, layered identities and cross border ties makes this a sensitive exercise. Many families, especially in rural or coastal areas, may not have complete documentation. The intention to verify citizenship is valid, but officials must ensure that the process does not become arbitrary or burdensome. The strength of the Election Commission’s credibility depends on measured handling of this phase.
The identification of nearly eighteen hundred duplicate registrations is another reminder of how voter lists can drift from accuracy. Duplicate voting is a criminal offence and deserves firm enforcement. Yet duplication sometimes stems from routine mobility. Students, seasonal workers and those who maintain more than one residence may leave unintentional traces across constituencies. Enforcement should be fair and proportionate, and complemented by better communication on timely updates.
The issue of voters with possible foreign citizenship, including those who have obtained Portuguese passports, adds another layer of sensitivity. The law is clear that foreign citizenship ends Indian citizenship. The system’s reliance on self declaration makes it difficult to ensure full compliance. If misrepresentation goes unchecked, the rolls remain compromised. If enforcement becomes aggressive, it risks creating anxiety among communities that have long lived with complex citizenship histories. The state must approach this with consistency and clarity.
Despite the magnitude of the revisions, the process has not yet sparked major controversy. Civil society groups have asked for greater transparency, but political parties have been restrained. That is encouraging in a state where elections are often decided by slim margins. The current revision will not affect the Zilla Panchayat polls later this month, which gives the administration time before the final list is published next year.
This is the most ambitious voter roll audit Goa has undertaken in more than twenty years. It presents an opportunity to strengthen public trust in the electoral process, but only if authorities remain open and responsive. Citizens should review the draft rolls when they are published and raise objections where needed. A clean and credible roll is not just an administrative task. It is a collective safeguard for the fairness of every election the state will face in the years ahead.
