Audit finds Bengal-specific access curbs in ECINET code

A Charchagram audit found West Bengal-specific access limits in ECINET’s publicly served frontend code. The code excluded West Bengal’s Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers from reviewing enumeration forms and using the notice-and-hearing dashboard. This mattered because those tools contained voter records, uploaded documents, recommendations, and hearing actions.

The restriction appeared as a hard-coded exception on the SIR Phase II landing page. The “View Enumeration Form Details” tile was generally available, but the code separately excluded West Bengal EROs and AEROs. The same exclusion covered the dashboard for notices and hearings. No similar state-specific exclusion was found for other states.

Charchagram saw the feature in code fetched as recently as October 19. The current build was introduced on October 16, while the feature had been visible since at least September 28. The audit did not test logins or server controls, so it cannot show whether the restriction operated in practice.

ECINET is the Election Commission of India’s portal used by election officials for electoral-roll and revision-related work. In the article, it includes SIR Phase II tools for viewing enumeration forms and managing notices and hearings. These tools connect officers with voter submissions, documents, recommendations, and case actions.

An Electoral Registration Officer, or ERO, is the official responsible for preparing, revising, and maintaining an electoral roll for a constituency. An Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, or AERO, supports the ERO in carrying out those duties. Their work can include examining forms, checking supporting documents, and processing registration or revision cases.

The article does not provide formal statutory definitions. Under established Indian election law, AEROs perform assigned functions under the ERO’s control, while the ERO remains responsible for the roll. That structure makes clear who supervises decisions and who is accountable for the roll’s accuracy and lawful revision.

West Bengal’s Special Intensive Revision had a very large effect on voters and electoral-roll cases. The draft roll removed 7.8% of the pre-SIR electorate, while the final roll removed 10%. The process therefore affected millions of people’s inclusion in the electoral roll before the Assembly elections.

The Election Commission later flagged 13.6 million people for “logical discrepancy,” a category introduced in West Bengal. Judicial officers reviewed those cases after the Supreme Court transferred responsibility for the hearings. They completed verification on April 6, and 2.2 million people were removed from the rolls among those discrepancy cases.

The article also reports that 2.71 million people were disenfranchised during the exercise. Those removed could approach one of 19 appellate tribunals, although the tribunals were not yet fully set up as the elections approached. Supplementary lists continued until one day before polling.

If applied, the reported restriction would prevent West Bengal EROs and AEROs from opening the “View Enumeration Form Details” feature and the notice-and-hearing dashboard. These were not merely summary screens. They supported review of voter submissions and the processing of electoral-roll cases.

The form-details page listed each form’s constituency, part and serial number, voter ID number, elector’s name, submitter, uploaded documents, and the booth-level officer’s recommendation. It also contained documents labelled “ERO/AERO-Document” and “Hearing-Order.” Officers could send a form back to the booth-level officer or flag an elector as a previous-SIR elector.

The dashboard was designed to track, process, and clear notices and hearing actions related to registration and roll revision. The audit confirmed only a frontend exclusion. It did not establish whether server-side controls also blocked access, or whether officers actually encountered the restriction in use.

The Supreme Court transferred hearing responsibility because the logical-discrepancy process had developed a serious backlog. The Election Commission and the West Bengal government were clashing over the rank of officers deputed to act as Electoral Registration Officers. The dispute delayed hearings while millions of cases remained pending.

On February 20, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142. It asked the Calcutta High Court’s chief justice to provide serving and former judicial officers to revisit and dispose of the claims. On February 24, it noted that about 250 judicial officers had been assigned about five million cases, potentially requiring 80 days.

The Court then widened the pool of judicial officers and limited consideration to documents submitted by February 14. It also placed responsibility on EROs and AEROs to satisfy the presiding judicial officers about the required documents. Judicial officers completed verification on April 6, but appellate arrangements remained incomplete.

Frontend code is the part of a website sent to a user’s browser. It controls what tiles, pages, and buttons appear on screen. A rule in that code can hide the enumeration-form tile from West Bengal EROs and AEROs, making the feature unavailable through the normal interface.

Server-side enforcement works differently. The server receives a request and decides whether the user is authorised to obtain data or perform an action. Even if a frontend hides a button, a server might still allow or deny a direct request. Conversely, a visible button may lead nowhere if the server rejects the request.

Charchagram reviewed only ECINET’s publicly served JavaScript bundle. It used no login, credentials, or endpoints, so it confirmed a frontend restriction but not a complete access block. The audit also could not compare earlier builds. Whether the rule operated in practice therefore remains unverified.

The article does not explain the statutory basis for ERO and AERO responsibility. Under established Indian election law, an ERO is the designated authority responsible for preparing, revising, and maintaining the electoral roll for a constituency. That makes the ERO accountable for lawful decisions about voter inclusion, exclusion, and corrections.

An AERO assists the ERO and performs assigned functions under the ERO’s control. The arrangement allows large volumes of forms and documents to be processed locally while keeping authority within a defined chain of supervision. AEROs may handle delegated tasks, but they do not replace the ERO’s overall responsibility for the roll.

This distinction mattered in West Bengal’s hearings. The Supreme Court said EROs and AEROs remained responsible for satisfying presiding judicial officers about the required documents. Keeping AEROs under ERO control supports consistency, accountability, and review when electoral-roll decisions are challenged.