EC’s SIR measures won’t undo mass disenfranchisement: Congress

• Congress has called the Election Commission’s new measures an admission that the Special Intensive Revision has been a ‘disaster’, saying they cannot undo what it describes as mass disenfranchisement.

• Jairam Ramesh has raised fresh questions over the use of ECINet, alleged overriding of ERO decisions and the Election Commission’s disclosures on AI-assisted electoral roll preparation.

• The Congress has rejected the EC’s explanation that all SIR decisions were unanimously approved, citing reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections to several decisions.

Stepping up its attack on the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Congress on Sunday, 27 September said the poll panel’s proposed measures relating to the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls amounted to an admission that the exercise had been a 'disaster'. It said the 'piecemeal' measures for voters whose names had been deleted or are at risk of deletion would do little to address what it described as 'mass disenfranchisement'.

Congress Rajya Sabha MP and general-secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh said the press note issued by the ECI on Saturday was a 'desperate attempt at damage control that hides all and reveals nothing'.

In a statement posted on X, Ramesh said the EC’s proposed measures were themselves an admission that the SIR had gone wrong. 'The piecemeal measures for deleted or at risk voters will do little to mitigate this mass disenfranchisement. For 5.43 crore voters who are at risk of deletion, the EC has promised that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will now visit their houses. This was supposed to happen during the house-to-house enumeration phase,' Ramesh said.

'We know that in practice these visits were sparse and sporadic. What is the value of promising a second round of visits which likely will not happen? The logic of repeating a process done poorly once must be examined,' he said.

The ECI, following its full-Commission meeting on 26 September, said BLOs would visit the homes of voters flagged for ‘logical’ or ‘unmapped’ discrepancies, collect documents and upload them to ECINet for consideration by electoral registration officers (EROs). It also said such voters would not ordinarily have to appear for hearings in person.

Ramesh questioned the purpose of the exercise, describing SIR as a 'colossal waste' of public resources and a nuisance for citizens. 'For nearly 14 crore voters deleted so far in all three phases of the SIR, the Commission’s answer is that they must now apply afresh to their Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) for inclusion. First disenfranchise en masse, and then ask voters to get themselves re-added,' he said.

The Congress leader also alleged that marginalised voters had been selectively targeted to benefit the BJP, and said the EC had failed to address the charge. 'The centrality of the ECINet software to the electoral roll preparation, its deletion of eligible voters and illegal override of EROs have not been denied. Nothing has been proposed to substantively address these issues,' Ramesh said.

The EC has announced a committee headed by a senior deputy election commissioner and including an independent technology expert from an IIT or IIIT to review ECINet and verify its compliance with relevant laws and rules. It has also said all future IT modules and portal initiatives will be examined by a committee of officers before being placed before the full Commission.

Ramesh, however, said the proposed review itself raised questions about the legality of the system. 'We have clear evidence that ECINet was used to delete eligible voters, overriding ERO decisions — this is illegal. EC claims to be resolving the issue in Goa, where it was caught. What about West Bengal where the same thing happened at a much larger scale?' he said. 'What about all other states where EROs may have been overruled to delete eligible voters?'

Ramesh also questioned whether the EC had clearly established that EROs would remain the final authority over electoral rolls, as provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

His remarks came a day after the ECI said all SIR orders had been issued with the unanimous approval of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The Commission also said its changes to Form 6, used for voter enrolment, had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The statement followed reports that Sandhu and Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to SIR-related decisions and orders which they said had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The ECI said the letters sent by the two commissioners to the cabinet secretary related to the working of an officer on deputation and not to policy or IT division matters.

Ramesh rejected this explanation, saying it 'hides more than it reveals'.

He alleged that the letter was prompted by an order that removed oversight from the IT division and stemmed from concerns repeatedly raised over its 'opaque and non-compliant' functioning.

'The core issue was that the IT division was overriding ‘statutory safeguards’ through ECINet,' Ramesh said, adding that these concerns remained unaddressed.

He also questioned the ECI’s transparency over who operates ECINet, saying it was only through disclosures by Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) that its involvement became known. 'Why this lack of transparency? Does the ongoing struggle to control the Tata Group have anything to do with this?' he asked.

Ramesh also raised questions over the use of artificial intelligence in electoral roll preparation. 'The disastrous Delhi SIR has revealed that AI is being used in the large-scale flagging of voters. The Delhi CEO’s defence was that some of the notices were ‘system-generated’. The EC has not been transparent about the use of AI in the SIR,' he said.

'In November 2025, the West Bengal CEO admitted to the use of AI. But in July 2026, the EC told UN Special Rapporteurs that ‘no artificial intelligence is used at any stage’. The EC must be transparent about AI use,' Ramesh said.

The Congress leader also questioned the ECI’s handling of changes to Form 6. He alleged that the change had not been denied and said the Commission’s reliance on a Supreme Court judgment dated 27 May did not adequately explain the subsequent alteration.

According to Ramesh, the judgment permitted the addition of a new declaration in Form 6 in the context of SIR, whereas the change made in July was incorporated into the online Form 6 for all voters, not just those covered by SIR. 'The same judgment also states that the ECI on its own cannot depart from the statutory procedure without a rational basis,' he said.

Ramesh also questioned the non-SIR Form 6 route being offered to voters, arguing that the Special Summary Revision (SSR) has been frozen since 2024 and that there is no non-SIR electoral roll being published through which voters can have their names added using Form 6.

The Congress leader said the EC’s promise to follow basic operating procedures was itself an admission that such procedures had not been followed adequately. 'This is a shocking state of affairs. The EC now promises to circulate agendas before its own meetings and complete performance appraisals on time. We know that the ECs themselves were being kept in the dark and finding out things from the media,' he said.

The ECI has, following its latest meeting, said agendas for all Commission meetings will be circulated in advance and minutes issued. It has also said directions issued by commissioners to officers will be complied with and that annual performance appraisals will be completed by 31 December each year.

Ramesh said the alleged disregard for law and procedure by a constitutional authority was 'deeply troubling'.

The Congress had earlier accused the EC of going into 'damage control' mode after reports of differences within the poll panel emerged and demanded an immediate suspension of the ongoing SIR exercise. It has also maintained that nothing short of the resignation or prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar would suffice.

With PTI inputs