Activists questioned the Election Commission's process for approving the nationwide electoral roll revision. Their allegations highlight concerns over transparency, database control and unauthorised procedural changes.Newdelhi,Oct 29, 2026 21:00 ISTActivists Prashant Bhushan, Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora on Thursday questioned the Election Commission's decision-making process for the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court left several critical questions unanswered, news agency Press Trust of India reported.At a press conference, the activists cited the Election Commission's counter-affidavit filed on October 26 and alleged a contradiction between its claim that decisions on the SIR were unanimous and an earlier response under the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that no decision had been taken to begin the nationwide exercise in 2025.Bharadwaj said she had sought records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide revision but was informed by the 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 it had not taken a decision to initiate the SIR across the country in 2025, PTI reported. “If the Election Commission did not take this decision, then who did?” Bharadwaj asked, questioning the absence of documents showing 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 June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were approved unanimously.

They asked why the decisions and records establishing such unanimity had not been provided in response to the RTI application 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 describe them as suggestions or differences of opinion.He also questioned the Commission's explanation that decisions in urgent situations could be approved electronically and later recorded in official files.

The activists sought details of decisions taken in this manner, including whether the nationwide SIR was among them, and called for an examination of the relevant emails and electronic communications.The activists 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 raised concerns about the gradual centralisation of the database. They had also proposed an audit to ensure that only officials legally authorised to do so could make changes to electoral rolls.The activists said the Commission's affidavit stated that a high-level committee was formed on October 14 to examine whether its ECINet system complied with applicable laws and rules.

The committee included senior Deputy Election Commissioners, state Chief Electoral Officers and independent experts from IIT Bombay and IISc Bengaluru.They asked 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 legal 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 required authorisation. They said the Commission's affidavit acknowledged that the online form had been altered and that some decisions needed to be corrected as they did not match the steps approved by the Commission.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 as an interim measure in West Bengal and that its legal validity was yet to be decided.The court had also observed that asking voters whose names were deleted during the revision to fill out Form 6 was an error, the activists said in a statement.They also raised the issue of around 16 lakh appeals filed against the inclusion of voters in West Bengal's electoral rolls.

According to the activists, the Commission'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 this raised questions about who had ordered and submitted the appeals and whether they had been generated automatically by the software. They called for an inquiry into the matter.The activists also asked whether action had been initiated against officials who, according to their reading of the affidavit, acted without the Commission's approval or authority.

They said the affidavit did not clarify whether disciplinary or other action had been taken.They called on the Election Commission to disclose the relevant records and provide clear answers about the authorisation, implementation and oversight of the nationwide SIR exercise.- Ends