'Who ordered SIR?' Activists flag gaps in ECI’s SIR affidavit, seek decision records

• Activists allege contradictions between the ECI’s affidavit and earlier RTI replies on the nationwide SIR.

• They question the alleged centralisation of electoral roll data and changes to Form 6.

• They seek an inquiry into around 16 lakh appeals concerning voter inclusion in West Bengal.

Activists Prashant Bhushan, Anjali Bhardwaj, Yogendra Yadav and AISA president Neha Bora on Thursday, 29 October questioned the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision-making process behind the nationwide special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court leaves several critical questions unanswered.

At a press conference at the Press Club of India in Delhi, the activists examined the ECI’s counter-affidavit filed on 26 October and pointed to alleged contradictions between its claim that decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously and an earlier response under the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that no decision had been taken to initiate the exercise nationwide in 2025.

Bhardwaj said she had sought records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide revision but was informed by the ECI’s public information officer that no such file was available. She said the matter was subsequently taken up with the first appellate authority, where the Commission’s principal secretary stated in writing that the ECI had not taken a decision to initiate the SIR across the country in 2025.

"If the Election Commission did not take this decision, then who did?" she asked, questioning the absence of documents establishing when and how the decision was made.

The activists said the Commission’s affidavit before the Supreme Court maintained that three orders relating to the SIR, issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026, had been approved unanimously. They questioned why the relevant decisions and records establishing such unanimity had not been furnished in the RTI reply or before the first appellate authority.

Bhushan alleged that the affidavit acknowledged objections raised by the two election commissioners over the SIR exercise but sought to downplay them as suggestions or differences of opinion. He also questioned the ECI’s explanation that decisions could be approved electronically in urgent situations and subsequently recorded in official files.

The activists sought details of decisions taken through such means, including whether the decision to conduct the nationwide SIR was among them. They called for the relevant emails and electronic communications to be examined.

They also raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral roll database and the authority to add or delete voters’ names.

According to their analysis of the affidavit, election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had earlier flagged concerns over the gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database and proposed an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could make changes to electoral rolls.

The Commission’s affidavit stated that a high-level committee comprising senior deputy election commissioners, state chief electoral officers and independent experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru had been constituted on 14 October to examine whether its ECINet system complied with applicable laws and rules, the activists said.

They questioned why the earlier concerns had not been addressed and sought clarity on who had been authorised to make changes to the database.

Bhushan also alleged that the process of adding and deleting names had been centralised through information technology units at the Commission’s Delhi office, bypassing the statutory role of electoral registration officers.

The activists questioned changes to Form 6, alleging that an additional declaration had been introduced in its online version without the requisite authorisation. They said the Commission’s affidavit acknowledged that the online form had been altered and that certain decisions needed to be corrected because they did not align with the steps approved by the Commission.

The activists also referred to a Supreme Court hearing on 28 October concerning the SIR exercise in Delhi. They said the court had clarified that the use of logical discrepancies as a criterion was permitted as an interim measure in West Bengal, with its legal validity yet to be adjudicated.

The court had also observed that asking voters whose names had been deleted during the revision to fill out Form 6 was an error, the activists said in a statement.

They further raised the issue of around 16 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters in electoral rolls in West Bengal. The activists said the ECI’s affidavit stated that the appeals had been filed by officials in the office of the state’s chief electoral officer and that the matter had not been brought to the Commission’s attention.

They alleged that the episode raised questions about who had directed the filing of the appeals, who had submitted them and whether the software had generated them automatically, and called for an inquiry.

The activists also questioned whether action had been initiated against officials who, according to their reading of the affidavit, had acted without the Commission’s approval or authority. They said the affidavit did not clarify whether disciplinary or other action had been taken against the officials concerned.

The activists called on the Commission to disclose the relevant records and provide clear answers on the authorisation, implementation and oversight of the nationwide SIR exercise.