Panaji, September 24: Raising serious questions over the manner in which Goa’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was conducted, the SIR Citizens’ Monitor – Goa has accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of presiding over what it described as a “haphazard and arbitrary” process and has questioned the legality of the exercise.

In a detailed statement issued on Wednesday, the citizens’ group alleged that shortcomings in the SIR process resulted in some voters being left out of the draft or final electoral rolls and that the mechanisms available to affected electors were inadequate or confusing.

The allegations assume significance because Goa underwent the SIR 2026 exercise with January 1, 2026 as the qualifying date. The Chief Electoral Officer’s official records show that before publication of the draft roll, Goa had 11,85,034 electors. Enumeration forms were received from 10,84,992 electors, while forms pertaining to 1,00,042 electors were not received and these persons were classified under the Absentee, Shifted, Dead and Duplicate (ASDD) categories. The draft roll was published on December 16, 2025, while the final SIR roll was published on February 21, 2026.

‘ECI itself did not take SIR decision’, group claims citing RTI

One of the most serious contentions raised by the SIR Citizens’ Monitor relates to information it says was obtained under the Right to Information Act.

The group claimed an RTI response indicated that the decision regarding the SIR had not been taken by the ECI itself. On this basis, it questioned the legal foundation of the entire exercise and accused the Commission of adopting a “submissive and subjugating approach”.

It further alleged that Chief Electoral Officers, Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers were required to implement directions which, according to the group, were ultra vires the Representation of the People Act and Registration of Electors Rules.

These are allegations made by the Citizens’ Monitor in its press release; an ECI response to these specific allegations was not included in the material provided. The CEO Goa website, meanwhile, records that the SIR was conducted in compliance with instructions issued by the Election Commission of India.

Voters whose names disappeared faced Form 6 problem

The group highlighted what it described as one of the biggest practical difficulties faced by affected voters.

According to the Citizens’ Monitor, when people who could not find their names on the draft rolls approached electoral authorities, some were given Form 6. The group argued that this put previously registered voters into a process intended for enrolment rather than directly restoring their names to the SIR roll.

It alleged that subordinate electoral officials themselves had little option because there was no mechanism available to simply restore certain deleted names to the SIR roll.

The ECI’s current elector-services portal separately provides services for registration, tracking applications and updating details in electoral rolls.

Serious allegation against a BLO

The Citizens’ Monitor also alleged that in one case a Booth Level Officer, apparently working under deadline pressure, recorded purported service of notices even though, according to the group, the notices had not actually been served.

It further alleged that the same BLO had failed to provide enumeration forms to several residents until former councillor Patricia Pinto publicly highlighted the issue on social media.

Given the seriousness of this allegation, it would require an official inquiry or response from the electoral authorities before any conclusion could be drawn about the conduct of the officer concerned.

Women faced difficulty getting enumeration forms, says group

The Citizens’ Monitor said it had also approached Electoral Roll Observer Sandeep Jacques and raised concerns over the way the enumeration process affected some women.

According to the group, there were cases where women did not receive enumeration forms from family members because of domestic circumstances. It said authorities had been urged to develop an alternative mechanism so that eligible women were not disadvantaged because of intra-family issues.

The group said it had repeatedly urged Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer to undertake wider public awareness about the SIR procedure, documentation and remedies available to voters.

It argued that without easily accessible and clearly disseminated information, a voter whose name had disappeared could face considerable difficulty navigating the system.

Confusion over appeals also flagged

Another issue raised was the appeals process.

The Citizens’ Monitor claimed that voters and those assisting them faced uncertainty over whether appeals were required to be filed online or through physical copies.

It further alleged that confusion arose over the status of Additional Collectors acting in electoral matters and claimed that some matters decided by Additional Collectors were subsequently reheard by Collectors.

CEO Goa allegedly sought SOP and technical guidance

The Citizens’ Monitor also claimed to possess communications sent by the office of Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer to the ECI.

According to the group, one such communication indicated that an SOP had been sought as early as March 12, 2026 for processing appeals and implementing orders through ERONET 2.0, but that a response was still awaited as of a later communication in May.

The group further claimed that electoral authorities had flagged the absence of a “rollback” option in ERONET for correction, updating or restoration of deleted entries and had sought directions from the ECI.

These claims concerning internal communications have been made by the Citizens’ Monitor and would need to be read alongside the original correspondence and any response from the ECI for the complete official position.

Group raises citizenship question

The Citizens’ Monitor also posed a wider question about people whose names did not appear in the SIR final roll, linking the issue to arguments surrounding verification of citizenship.

However, absence from an electoral roll should not by itself be reported as a determination that a person has lost Indian citizenship. The group framed this as a question arising from its interpretation of the SIR proceedings rather than as an established legal consequence.

ECI’s official figures show scale of exercise

Official figures underline the scale of Goa’s SIR. Of the 11,85,034 electors on the rolls before draft publication, enumeration forms relating to 1,00,042 electors — 8.44% — were not received. The official breakup listed 25,574 as deceased, 29,729 as untraceable/absent, 40,469 as permanently shifted, 1,997 as already enrolled and 2,273 under “others”.

The official CEO Goa portal continues to host the SIR 2026 final and draft electoral rolls as well as ASDD-related information.

The Citizens’ Monitor has placed responsibility for the alleged procedural deficiencies on the Election Commission of India, while the official record states that Goa’s SIR was conducted pursuant to ECI instructions. The competing positions make the specific allegations concerning deleted names, appeal procedures, Form 6, ERONET and the claimed RTI disclosure matters that would benefit from a detailed response from the ECI.

The September 24 statement was issued in the names of Albertina Almeida, Elvis Gomes, Radhika Desai, Savio Coutinho, Melwyn Fernandes, Abdul Wahab, Cyril Fernandes and Caroline Collasso.