EC refuses to name software used to flag SIR errors, cites ‘trade secrets’ RTI exemption: Report

The Election Commission declined to identify the software allegedly used to detect errors and anomalies during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. It withheld both the software’s name and version. The decision matters because voters and political parties are questioning how records are being flagged and reviewed.

The response came to an RTI application by activist MA Mujeeb Ayyub. The Commission invoked the Right to Information Act exemption covering commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property. It separately said no new software had been developed or procured for the SIR.

The Commission also refused to explain who reviews flagged anomalies. It said some requested details were merely clarifications, not information under the Act, and cited another exemption concerning safety and confidential sources. The lack of disclosure has fueled Congress criticism and wider concerns about transparency.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is an exercise for preparing and revising electoral rolls. It involves checking voter records and deciding whether electors should be included or excluded. The article presents it as a major administrative process affecting people’s ability to vote.

During this SIR, the Election Commission reportedly used software to detect errors and anomalies in electoral-roll data. Applicants wanted to know whether automated tools flagged records for verification, correction or deletion. Electoral registration officers then decide inclusion or exclusion based on facts and records.

The exercise is controversial because critics fear genuine electors could lose their place on the rolls. The SIR began in June 2025 and has faced questions about its pace and implementation. The Supreme Court upheld its legality in May but said the Commission cannot decide whether someone is an Indian citizen.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised 14 formal objections over 10 months. The objections concerned decisions by the Election Commission related to the special intensive revision of electoral rolls.

The Indian Express reported on September 23 that some decisions had been taken without their knowledge. The figure therefore points to internal disagreement within the poll panel, rather than simply public criticism of the SIR. The article does not list every objection or explain each commissioner’s specific concern.

The reported objections form part of a wider transparency dispute. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh linked the concerns to ECINET and the Commission’s Information and Technology Division. Meanwhile, protests have targeted Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and critics continue to question whether the revision could affect genuine voters and election outcomes.

Software or artificial intelligence could identify voter records that appear inconsistent or anomalous and send them for verification. The applicant specifically asked whether records were automatically flagged for verification, correction or deletion. The article does not establish that AI or machine learning was used.

The Election Commission said electoral registration officers decide inclusion or exclusion based on facts and records. These officers are the statutory authorities responsible for preparing and revising the roll in their constituencies. Thus, any automated flag would function as a review trigger, while the officer would make the formal decision.

The safeguards remain unclear because the Commission refused some requested details. Ayyub asked how false positives and wrongful flags were prevented, and who reviewed anomalies. The Commission withheld information about reviewers and cited RTI exemptions, intensifying concerns about transparency and accountability.

The Right to Information Act exemption for commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property protects certain sensitive business information from disclosure. In practical terms, it can allow a public authority to withhold details whose release could reveal confidential technical or commercial knowledge.

The Election Commission relied on this exemption when asked to identify the software and version used to detect errors and anomalies during the SIR. It did not provide those details, even though the application concerned a public electoral process. The Commission also said no new software had been developed or procured for the exercise.

The exemption has become controversial here because the withheld information concerns voter-roll administration. Congress accused the Commission of hiding information about ECINET and alleged that AI was being used. The article records these claims but does not independently establish them. The result is continued debate over transparency and public oversight.

A false positive occurs when an automated system treats a genuine voter record as suspicious or incorrect. That record could then be sent for verification, correction or possible deletion. The concern matters because electoral rolls determine who is recognised as an elector for voting purposes.

The RTI applicant specifically asked what safeguards prevented false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors. The article does not explain whether such automated flags were actually used. It says electoral registration officers decide inclusion or exclusion based on facts and records, but the Commission did not disclose who reviews flagged anomalies.

The reported risk is loss of voting rights for genuine electors. The article says critics fear the SIR could deny genuine electors their right to vote and shape election outcomes. That concern, combined with limited disclosure about software and safeguards, has intensified demands for transparency around the revision.

The Election Commission says the electoral registration officer of each constituency is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising that constituency’s electoral roll. Officers decide whether an elector is included or excluded, using facts and records. This defines the Commission’s role in maintaining voter lists.

That role is different from finally determining citizenship. The article says the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the SIR in May, but clarified that this did not mean the Election Commission could decide whether a person is an Indian citizen. The Commission can administer the electoral-roll exercise within its legal responsibilities.

The distinction matters because the SIR has raised concerns about exclusion and eligibility. The Court’s statement limits what the revision can establish, while officers still handle roll decisions. The article does not provide further detail about which authority finally determines citizenship or how such cases proceed.