New Delhi, Oct 29 Activists Prashant Bhushan, Anjali Bharadwaj, Yogendra Yadav and Neha Bora on Thursday questioned the Election Commission’s decision-making process while introducing the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that its latest affidavit before the Supreme Court leaves several critical questions unanswered.
Addressing a press conference, the activists examined the Election Commission’s counter-affidavit filed on October 26 and alleged contradictions in its claims that the SIR decisions 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 across the country in 2025.
Bharadwaj said she had sought records relating to the decision to undertake the nationwide revision but was informed by the Election Commission’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 Commission 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 in 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 questioned why the relevant decisions and records demonstrating such unanimity had not been furnished in the RTI reply or the First Appellate Authority.
Bhushan alleged that the affidavit acknowledged objections raised by the two Election Commissioners related to the SIR exercise but attempted to minimise them as suggestions or differences of opinion.
He also questioned the Election Commission’s explanation that, in urgent situations, decisions could be approved electronically and subsequently recorded in official files.
The activists sought details of the decisions taken through such means, including whether the decision to conduct the nationwide SIR was among them, and 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 October 14 to examine whether its ECINet system complied with the 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 also questioned changes to Form 6, alleging that an additional declaration was introduced in its online version without 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 were not aligned with the steps approved by the Commission.
They further referred to a Supreme Court hearing on October 28 concerning the SIR exercise in Delhi, saying the court had clarified that the use of logical discrepancies as a criterion was permitted as an interim measure in West Bengal and that its legal validity was 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 also raised the issue of around 16 lakh appeals filed against inclusion of voters in the electoral rolls in West Bengal.
The activists said the Election 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 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. They called for an inquiry into the matter.
The activists also questioned whether any 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 such officials.
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.
(PTI News)
