The Election Commission of India has declined to reveal the name, version and technical details of the software used to detect errors and inconsistencies during its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying the information is protected by an exemption in the Right to Information (RTI) Act that covers commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property.
The poll panel's position came in response to an RTI application filed by M.A. Mujeeb Ayyub, a social activist based in Karimnagar, Telangana. In its reply, dated October 16, the Commission said that details of the software application or artificial intelligence tools used in the revision exercise fall under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which allows public authorities to withhold information whose disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The applicant had asked whether automated decision support tools, machine learning or artificial intelligence systems were used to flag voter records for deletion or correction, and what safeguards existed against false positives — cases in which a genuine voter might be wrongly flagged.
The Commission maintained that questions seeking technical clarifications of this kind do not qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines the scope of what an applicant can seek.
In the same reply, the Commission added that no new software had been developed or procured specifically for the SIR exercise. It also underlined that any decision to include or exclude an elector from the rolls rests with the electoral registration officer (ERO) of the constituency concerned, who acts on the basis of facts and records. The ERO, the panel said, is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll of each constituency.
The disclosure has renewed a debate about transparency in the SIR exercise, which involves a comprehensive revision and cleaning of electoral rolls. Critics of the process have argued that the public has a right to know how software tools identify discrepancies in voter data, particularly when the outcome can affect whether a citizen remains on the rolls.
Supporters of the Commission's stance point out that the RTI Act itself contains exemptions designed to protect commercially sensitive information, and that the final decision in every case remains a human one taken by the registration officer.
The latest RTI exchange is not the first time the software question has surfaced. In September, Trinamool Congress leader Saket Gokhale accused the Commission of withholding details of the software and algorithm used for the SIR, citing an earlier RTI response.
Gokhale had filed his application on April 17, seeking technical documents relating to a Logical Discrepancy module or algorithm integrated into ERONET, the Commission's centralised system for managing India's voter database.
His request covered the software and functional requirements of the module, the logic and parameters used to flag discrepancies, procurement and development documents, testing and validation reports, file notings and instructions issued to electoral registration officers.
In its response dated July 21, the Commission said the information sought under the first two points was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, and added that no module had been developed specifically for the SIR in West Bengal.
On the question of procurement and development, the Commission told Gokhale that no separate procurement or development had been undertaken for the SIR in West Bengal, and that questions about testing, validation, administrative approvals and instructions to officers did not arise in view of that answer.
Gokhale, however, argued publicly that software used by a public authority should not be shielded on grounds of commercial interest, and asked whose commercial interest was being protected.
The controversy also follows reporting that raised questions about the software tools used in the revision process, including claims that concerns had been expressed internally about some aspects of the exercise. The Commission has consistently maintained that its processes are governed by law and that the integrity of the rolls is protected by the statutory role of registration officers, who verify each case on its merits rather than acting automatically on a software flag.
Understanding the SIR requires some background on how electoral rolls are maintained in India. The rolls are living documents, updated continuously as voters turn eighteen, move house or pass away. A special intensive revision is a more thorough exercise, involving house-to-house verification and a careful check of entries against available records.
In recent years, technology has played a growing role in identifying possible duplicates, errors and inconsistencies, allowing officials to focus their field verification on cases that need attention.
The tension at the heart of the current debate is familiar in election administration around the world. On one side is the need for transparency, so that political parties, civil society and voters themselves can trust that the rolls are accurate and that no eligible voter is wrongly removed.
On the other side is the argument that disclosing the inner workings of software systems could expose them to manipulation, or reveal proprietary information belonging to the firms that built them.
Legal experts note that Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is not an absolute shield. The provision exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless a larger public interest warrants disclosure.
Applicants who are dissatisfied with a refusal can appeal to higher authorities under the Act, and ultimately to the information commissions, which weigh the claimed exemption against the public interest in disclosure.
For voters, the practical question is simpler: whether their names are correctly recorded, and what remedy exists if they are not. The Commission has repeatedly said that electors can check their entries, file claims and objections during revision periods, and approach the registration officer with supporting documents.
Opposition parties, meanwhile, have demanded greater disclosure about the tools used to flag entries, arguing that transparency is essential to public confidence in the electoral process.
The latest RTI reply is likely to keep the issue alive in the coming weeks, as political parties scrutinise the SIR exercise and as the Commission continues its roll revision work across states. What remains undisputed is that the final word on any individual entry rests with the electoral registration officer, and that the software, whatever its design, is presented by the Commission as a support tool rather than a decision-maker.
Whether the exemption will withstand challenge before the information commissions, and whether the Commission will voluntarily disclose more about its systems, are questions that will shape the next phase of this debate. For now, the Commission's position is clear: the name and version of the software, and the technical details behind its flagging of voter records, will not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
(Reporting based on Hindustan Times and WION.)