Archive · 25 Sep 2026
Goa’s 97 Eligible Voters Miss Final Roll Amid ECINet Row
A report says 97 people in Goa were approved by local election officers but were still missing from the final voter list.
Their names had been questioned during a voter-roll checking exercise.
After looking at documents and objections, local officers reportedly decided that the voters were eligible.
However, the ECINet computer system allegedly did not let officials undo the earlier deletions.
Goa officials reportedly sent eight emails asking for this ability before the final list was published.
The final voter list came out on February 21.
Congress leaders said this showed that too much control had been placed in a central system.
The Election Commission said its members may discuss issues differently but agreed unanimously on the final SIR decisions.
The Goa Chief Electoral Officer said he did not yet have information about the specific case and would check his report.
A report alleged that 97 Goa voters found eligible by local EROs were left out of the 2026 final electoral roll.
The voters had been flagged during the Special Intensive Revision over alleged “logical discrepancies.”
Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer’s office reportedly sent eight emails seeking a facility to reverse earlier deletion decisions in ECINet.
Congress leaders accused the Election Commission of excessive centralisation and called for the voters’ names to be restored.
The Election Commission rejected claims of an internal split, saying SIR-related decisions were approved unanimously.
- Who
- The 97 affected Goa voters, local Electoral Registration Officers, the Election Commission of India, Goa Chief Electoral Officer Sanjay Goel, and Congress leaders including Jairam Ramesh and Shashi Tharoor.
- What
- A report alleged that 97 voters found eligible for inclusion were left out of the final electoral roll because officials could not reverse earlier deletions through ECINet.
- When
- The final electoral roll was published on February 21; Goa officials reportedly sent requests between February 11 and 17, and the report said the names remained absent as of September 20.
- Where
- Goa, India; the report said ECINet was controlled by the Election Commission’s IT division in Delhi.
- Why
- The reported exclusion was allegedly linked to ECINet not providing local officials with a facility to reverse earlier deletion decisions.
Opposition and Critics
Election Commission Position
Centralised control of electoral rolls
Opposition and Critics
Congress leaders argued that limiting local EROs’ ability to use ECINet excessively centralised the process and could prevent eligible voters from being restored.
Election Commission Position
The Election Commission maintained that its SIR-related decisions followed the established process and were approved unanimously by all three commissioners.
Status of the 97 voters
Opposition and Critics
The report and Congress leaders described the voters’ continued absence after local officials found them eligible as a serious problem requiring corrective action.
Election Commission Position
Goa Chief Electoral Officer Sanjay Goel said he did not have information about the specific case when questioned and would check his report before responding.
Internal disagreement within the Commission
Opposition and Critics
Reports and Opposition parties interpreted objections attributed to Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as evidence of significant disagreement over electoral-roll systems and centralisation.
Election Commission Position
The Election Commission said differences of opinion and suggestions are normal in internal discussions and do not amount to a split in the three-member body.
- Affected voters
- 97 voters were reportedly found eligible by local EROs but remained absent from the final roll.
- Final roll
- The 2026 final electoral roll was published on February 21.
- Voter-roll system
- ECINet was the software identified in the dispute.
- Reported requests
- The Goa Chief Electoral Officer’s office reportedly sent eight emails over seven days.
- Request period
- The emails were reportedly sent between February 11 and 17.
- Political response
- Congress leaders criticized centralisation and called for corrective action, including restoring the affected voters’ names.
- Election Commission position
- The Commission said differences in internal discussions did not constitute a split and that SIR decisions were approved unanimously.
