Context: The 2025–26 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has raised concerns not only about the Election Commission of India's (ECI) autonomy, documentary requirements and voter eligibility but also about technological failures leading to potential voter exclusion.
- It is the first electoral roll revision of this scale conducted through a centralised digital platform, exposing shortcomings in system design, algorithmic validation and digital governance.
Technological Challenges in the SIR Exercise
1. Algorithmic Errors and Logical Discrepancies
- ERONet-based flagging: The ECI's centralised electoral roll management platform flags voters for 'logical discrepancies' based on criteria such as parent-child age gaps and the number of children linked to a parent.
- Inaccurate age records: Ages recorded in electoral rolls are often approximate, particularly for older citizens born at home, making rigid age-based algorithms unreliable.
- Disproportionate impact: An analysis of Delhi's draft electoral roll by The Hindu found that family-size checks disproportionately flagged Muslim electors, raising concerns about algorithmic bias.
- Legal uncertainty: The Supreme Court clarified that it had not ruled on the legality of the 'logical discrepancy' category and had permitted its use in West Bengal only as an interim arrangement.
- Lack of transparency: Software rules determining which voters must attend hearings remain unpublished, vary across States and place the burden of correcting errors on voters.
2. Inaccurate Name Matching and Digitisation
- Historical record matching: Linking voters to their parents in the 2002 electoral rolls requires matching names across decades, languages and different spellings.
- Transliteration errors: In West Bengal, old Bengali-language electoral records were digitised and converted into English, reportedly using machine tools, resulting in distorted names.
- Large-scale discrepancies: Over 1.3 crore entries were flagged in West Bengal, with the ECI's counsel informing the Supreme Court that more than half the logical discrepancy cases involved name variations.
- Wider geographical impact: Similar name-matching difficulties emerged in Telangana and Karnataka. The ECI's own search portal advises users to try alternative spellings.
- Inadequate pilot testing: Testing the system across constituencies with different linguistic characteristics could have identified these problems before nationwide implementation.
3. Frequent Software Changes During Implementation
- Unstable digital platform: New features and algorithms were introduced while the SIR exercise was underway, disrupting established workflows.
- De-duplication software: Previously used to identify possible duplicate voter IDs, the software was not deployed in Bihar, and the ECI informed the Supreme Court in late 2025 that its results were unreliable. Nevertheless, it was subsequently reintroduced in some States and Union Territories.
- Changes in voter mapping: New algorithms checking voters' links with relatives on older electoral rolls required Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to repeat previously completed work.
- Administrative pressure: Frequent software updates increased workload, stress and frustration among BLOs.
- Absence of change control: Large-scale digital systems require a change freeze during sensitive live operations, with new features tested and documented before deployment.
4. Lack of Written Guidelines and Administrative Transparency
- Informal instructions: Changes to ERONet, including options allowing Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to dispose of certain notice cases without hearings, were communicated through demonstration videos in October.
- Unclear procedures: Operational instructions were frequently conveyed through video conferences and WhatsApp groups without corresponding updates to official manuals.
- Software overriding procedure: When digital rules change without written guidelines, software effectively becomes the operational rulebook, undermining transparency and accountability.
- Reduced administrative discretion: Centrally controlled software restricted the ability of BLOs and EROs to exercise their statutory responsibilities, prompting officials in some States to seek restoration of discretion over hearings.
- Weak appeal mechanisms: Citizens face difficulties challenging decisions when the underlying rules are not formally documented or publicly accessible.
5. Mismatch Between Digital Forms and Legal Requirements
- Unauthorised Form 6 modification: The online Form 6 included a mandatory SIR-related declaration concerning parents and grandparents, although this requirement was absent from the statutory form.
- Judicial intervention: The Supreme Court clarified that it had never approved this modification.
- Incorrect application procedure: In Delhi, previously registered voters whose enumeration forms were not received were directed to submit Form 6, which is intended for new voter registration.
- Structural incongruity: The Supreme Court described this mismatch as a structural incongruity, highlighting the divergence between legal procedures and digital workflows.
- System design failure: Digital interfaces must reflect statutory requirements rather than impose additional conditions without legal authorisation.
6. Time Constraints and Electoral Roll Accuracy
- Inadequate implementation period: The Supreme Court questioned the tight SIR deadline in Delhi, where no immediate election was scheduled.
- Election-related pressure: In Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, enumeration lasted approximately six weeks, with final electoral rolls released in February ahead of Assembly elections scheduled for April.
- Pending verification: West Bengal's final electoral roll contained over 50 lakh names marked 'under adjudication', indicating unresolved eligibility-related cases.
- Poor rollout planning: Implementation timelines were determined primarily by electoral schedules rather than technological readiness, administrative capacity and local conditions.
Lessons from India's Digital Public Infrastructure
- India's technological capabilities: Platforms such as UPI, Aadhaar, DigiLocker, IRCTC and income-tax e-filing demonstrate India's ability to operate large-scale digital systems.
- Importance of gradual development: These platforms evolved through years of pilot testing, technical refinement, stakeholder feedback and documented specifications.
- SIR's implementation gap: Unlike these successful initiatives, the SIR exercise reportedly lacked adequate testing, stable deployment protocols and transparent documentation.
- Digital transformation principle: Technology must be adapted to legal, administrative and social realities rather than forcing citizens to comply with rigid software assumptions.
Key Concepts Relevant to UPSC
1. ERONet: ERONet is the ECI's digital electoral roll management platform, designed to support voter registration, electoral roll updates and related administrative processes.
Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs)
- BLOs: Grassroots election functionaries responsible for assisting electoral roll verification and voter-related field activities.
- EROs: Statutory authorities responsible for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls for their respective constituencies under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
2. Constitutional and Legal Framework
- Article 324: Vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission of India.
- Article 326: Provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies based on adult suffrage.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950: Governs electoral roll preparation, voter qualifications and registration.
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Prescribe procedures and forms for electoral registration, including Form 6 for inclusion of names in electoral rolls.
3. Algorithmic Governance and 'Code is Law'
- Algorithmic governance: Use of automated, rule-based digital systems to support or determine administrative decisions.
- 'Code is Law': A concept associated with legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, highlighting how software architecture and programmed rules can regulate people's behaviour and access to rights.
- Relevance to SIR: Software-based eligibility checks and hearing requirements can effectively determine citizens' access to electoral processes, even when such requirements are not explicitly established by law.
Way Forward
- Pilot testing: Validate electoral roll algorithms across linguistically and demographically diverse constituencies before large-scale deployment.
- Context-sensitive verification: Account for approximate ages, regional naming conventions and variations in historical records to minimise erroneous flagging.
- Algorithmic transparency: Publish the criteria used for identifying discrepancies and determining hearing requirements, enabling independent scrutiny.
- Stable software deployment: Introduce change-control mechanisms, including testing, documentation and restrictions on modifications during live operations.
- Written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Ensure that all operational changes are formally documented and communicated before implementation.
- Statutory compliance: Align digital forms, automated decisions and administrative workflows with applicable electoral laws and judicial directions.
- Administrative discretion: Preserve the statutory authority of EROs and provide mechanisms for human review of algorithm-generated discrepancies.
- Realistic timelines: Determine revision schedules according to system readiness, administrative capacity and the time required for voters to resolve discrepancies.
- Accessible grievance redressal: Establish transparent appeal mechanisms and safeguards against wrongful voter exclusion.
Conclusion: The SIR controversy demonstrates that technological efficiency cannot come at the cost of electoral inclusion and procedural fairness. Electoral digitisation must be guided by transparency, legal compliance, rigorous testing and human oversight to ensure that technology strengthens democratic participation rather than becoming a source of disenfranchisement.
