The visit of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to poll-bound Goa looked, on the surface, like an impressive exercise in institutional outreach. He addressed more than a thousand Booth Level Officers (BLOs) on Wednesday, interacted with members of Electoral Literacy Clubs and visited model polling booths, presenting an image of a democratic process that was transparent and fully audited. Yet beneath the polished talk, there were no takeaways for Goa's voters, as he failed to hear or address the concerns that actually matter. Much of what the CEC chose to emphasise seemed disconnected from the anxieties surrounding the polls in Goa. Explaining that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are essentially “simple calculators”, reiterating the constitutional position of NOTA or pointing out that candidates are not required to have educational qualifications may be useful as civic education. But these are hardly the substantive assurances one would expect from the head of the Election Commission of India when there are more serious questions about the integrity of EVMs, the electoral rolls or the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). He said Goa had the best SIR in the country, but the reality is that opposition parties and other stakeholders had repeatedly flagged concerns about the revision of electoral rolls. The CEC’s assertion sounded more like an attempt to close the debate before he even heard it. Or was that the agenda? If we may recall, political parties had raised fears about genuine local voters being arbitrarily deleted, suspicious bulk additions to the rolls and a lack of clarity over the procedures surrounding enumeration notices. That being said, the political parties, however, cannot escape scrutiny either. Opposition groups have been vocal on various platforms about their apprehensions over the SIR, but there appears to have been no serious effort to secure a formal meeting with the CEC during his two-day visit. It is not enough to raise an alarm in public and then fail to confront the Election Commission’s chief when he is actually in the State.
The CEC laid out an institutional narrative focused more on procedure than on trust by saying that electoral rolls, polling and counting are subject to concurrent scrutiny by Booth Level Agents (BLAs) and polling agents, while maintaining that India’s electoral system is among the most transparent in the world. BLOs are key people on the ground, and meeting them is welcome. However, public confidence cannot be built by speaking only to the system’s field-level personnel while sidestepping issues triggering public mistrust.
Most surprising, however, was the reluctance over the election timetable. In a state preparing for an Assembly election, political parties, the administration and ordinary citizens have a legitimate need for some sense of the road ahead. Chief Minister Pramod Sawant sounds confident of a February 2027 election. The CEC, instead, offered little more than “samay par hoga” (it will happen on time). The decision to avoid a substantive interaction with the mainstream media only compounded the problem. A comprehensive press conference would have allowed journalists to seek answers and the Commission an opportunity to address questions publicly. In a democracy preparing for a crucial mandate, the Election Commission cannot rely solely on well-rehearsed events and a pre-planned script. It must also be willing to listen, explain and face uncomfortable questions. Electoral machinery may be robust on paper, but democracy ultimately rests on public trust, and that trust has to be earned through openness and clarity.
