Activists Prashant Bhushan, Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora on Thursday questioned the Election Commission's decision-making process in introducing the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court had raised more questions than it answered.
Addressing a press conference, the activists pointed to alleged inconsistencies between the Election Commission's counter-affidavit filed on October 26 and its earlier responses under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. They questioned how the poll body could claim that decisions concerning the SIR were taken unanimously when an earlier official response had stated that no decision to initiate the exercise nationwide had been taken in 2025.
The activists also raised concerns over the centralisation of electoral roll data, changes to voter registration forms and the authority exercised by officials in adding or deleting names from electoral rolls.
๐ฅ๐ง๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐น๐ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐
Bharadwaj said she had sought records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide SIR but was informed by the Election Commission's Public Information Officer that no such file was available.
She subsequently approached the First Appellate Authority, where the Commission's Principal Secretary stated in writing that the poll body had not taken a decision in 2025 to initiate the exercise across the country.
"If the Election Commission did not take this decision, then who did?" Bharadwaj asked, questioning the absence of official records establishing when and how the decision was made.
The activists said the Commission's affidavit maintained that three orders relating to the SIR, issued on June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, had received unanimous approval.
They questioned why records supporting these decisions had not been provided in response to the RTI application or during the first appeal.
๐ค๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฎ๐น
Bhushan alleged that the affidavit acknowledged objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi concerning aspects of the SIR exercise but sought to characterise them as suggestions or differences of opinion.
He questioned the Commission's explanation that urgent decisions could be approved electronically and subsequently entered into official records.
The activists demanded disclosure of decisions taken through such procedures and sought clarification on whether the nationwide SIR had been approved in this manner.
They also called for examination of relevant emails and electronic communications to establish the circumstances in which the decisions were taken.
According to the activists, the affidavit did not adequately explain how unanimity had been established despite the concerns reportedly expressed by the two Election Commissioners.
๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐ณ๐น๐ฎ๐ด๐ด๐ฒ๐ฑ
Another major concern raised at the press conference related to the alleged centralisation of the electoral roll database and the authority to modify voter records.
The activists said Sandhu and Joshi had earlier flagged concerns about the gradual centralisation of electoral data and suggested an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could make changes to electoral rolls.
According to their reading of the affidavit, the Commission constituted a high-level committee on October 14 to examine whether its ECINet system complied with applicable laws and rules.
The committee reportedly included senior Deputy Election Commissioners, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent experts from IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Bhushan alleged that the process of adding and deleting voters' names had been centralised through information technology units at the Election Commission's Delhi office, potentially bypassing the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers.
The activists sought clarification on who had been authorised to access and modify the database and whether the earlier concerns raised by Election Commissioners had been addressed.
๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ
The activists also alleged that an additional declaration had been introduced in the online version of Form 6, used for voter registration, without the necessary authorisation.
They claimed that the Commission's affidavit acknowledged alterations to the online form and indicated that certain decisions required correction because they were inconsistent with the procedures approved by the poll body.
Referring to a Supreme Court hearing on October 28 concerning the SIR exercise in Delhi, the activists said the court had clarified that the use of logical discrepancies as a criterion had been permitted only as an interim measure in West Bengal.
They said the legal validity of the criterion remained to be adjudicated.
The activists further cited the court's observation that requiring voters whose names had been deleted during the revision to submit Form 6 was an error.
They called for clarity on the legal basis of the changes and the officials responsible for implementing them.
๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐น๐ฎ๐ธ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐
The activists raised questions about approximately 16 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters in electoral rolls in West Bengal.
They said the Election Commission's affidavit indicated that the appeals had been filed by officials in the office of the state's Chief Electoral Officer without the matter being brought to the Commission's attention.
Questioning the circumstances surrounding the filings, they sought details of who had directed the appeals, who had submitted them and whether they had been generated automatically through software.
They demanded an inquiry to establish whether the appeals had been filed with proper authorisation and in accordance with prescribed procedures.
The activists also questioned whether any disciplinary or other action had been initiated against officials who, according to their interpretation of the affidavit, had acted without the Commission's approval.
They maintained that the affidavit did not provide clarity on whether accountability had been fixed for such actions.
๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐๐น๐น ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐น๐ผ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ
The activists urged the Election Commission to make public the records relating to the authorisation, implementation and oversight of the nationwide SIR.
They said the poll body should clarify how key decisions were approved, who exercised authority over the electoral database and whether officials had acted beyond their statutory powers.
They also sought disclosure of electronic communications and records relating to the changes in Form 6 and the appeals filed in West Bengal.
The allegations were based on the activists' interpretation of the Commission's affidavit and RTI responses. Their claims concerning unauthorised actions and procedural irregularities have not been independently established.