Skip to content
Sign in
Technology · South Asia

Election Commission withholds details of software used in voter-roll checks

The Election Commission refused to disclose details of software used to identify voter-roll discrepancies during the Special Intensive Revision. It said no new software was developed or procured for the exercise, while constituency-level electoral registration officers make voter-inclusion and exclusion decisions.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 5 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 3 of 5 outlets · 1 article captured only in partHow it's made

View timeline · 10 entries
5 outletsLatest reporting 4 min read
Coverage: Center OnlyL 0 · C 4 · R 0 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: Election Commission
Updat3 graphic

What happened

Key facts

  • The Election Commission refused to disclose the name and version of software used to identify voter-roll errors and anomalies during SIR.
  • The Commission said the requested information was exempt under the RTI Act because it concerned commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property.
  • The Commission's reply, dated Oct 16, followed an RTI plea from M A Mujeeb Ayyub, a social activist from Karimpur in Telangana.
  • Ayyub's plea, dated July 27, asked about software, applications, algorithms or AI platforms used to identify electoral-roll inconsistencies during SIR.
  • The Commission said it had developed or procured no new software for SIR and that EROs decide voter inclusion or exclusion based on facts and records.
  • An Election Commission official said software and algorithm details were conventionally not shared in response to RTI requests.
  • Bharat Electronics Ltd and Electronics Corporation of India Ltd had earlier declined to share EVM source codes in response to RTI queries.

The brief

The Election Commission has refused to disclose details of software used to identify discrepancies in voter rolls during the Special Intensive Revision, while saying it developed or procured no new software for the exercise. Its reply, dated October 16, came under the Right to Information Act and addressed a request from social activist M A Mujeeb Ayyub.

The Commission said constituency-level electoral registration officers decide whether voters are included in or excluded from the roll. Its reply also said that questions about automatic flagging, AI or machine learning, and safeguards against wrongful identification sought clarification rather than information covered by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The outlets provide different levels of detail about the disclosure refusal. The Times of India specifies that the Commission withheld the software’s name and version and describes its reason as an RTI exemption concerning commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property.

Bhaskar English and Hindustan Times report the Commission’s invocation of trade secrets and intellectual property, while IBTimes India and Pragativadi corroborate the refusal and the trade-secrets exemption in their headlines. Hindustan Times identifies Ayyub as a social activist based in Karimnagar, Telangana.

The Times of India describes him as based in Karimpur, Telangana, and says his request covered software, applications, algorithms or AI platforms used to find errors, anomalies or inconsistencies. The accounts therefore give different place names for his location; neither supports resolving that discrepancy here.

The Commission’s account separates technical tools from formal decision-making: it says no new system was acquired or built, and assigns inclusion and exclusion decisions to constituency-level registration officers.

Its response did not provide the requested clarification on whether records were automatically flagged, whether AI or machine learning was involved, or what safeguards applied to prevent wrongful flagging. The reporting also places the disclosure request alongside scrutiny of Commission procedures.

Hindustan Times and Bhaskar English cite an Indian Express investigation reporting that Election Commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written dissents and objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026. The same reporting says they wrote to the cabinet secretary.

These reported internal disagreements concern Commission decisions and procedures; the accounts do not establish that they concerned the software request itself. Bhaskar English also reports that the Commission said Manish Garg’s work-allocation orders had not been implemented and that oversight of the IT department had not been removed.

That statement adds an institutional detail to the account of how the Commission handled technology-related responsibilities, but does not identify the software used for the voter-roll checks.

Why it matters

  • Voters whose records are checked in the Special Intensive Revision could be affected by errors or mistaken flags; the Commission did not explain whether automatic flagging or AI/ML was used or what safeguards applied.
  • The Commission says electoral registration officers at constituency level determine inclusion and exclusion, placing those decisions with named officials rather than attributing them to software alone.
  • Ayyub sought information about the tools used to identify roll inconsistencies, but the Commission treated questions about automated checks and safeguards as requests for clarification under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
  • The reported 14 or more written dissents and objections by SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi indicate documented internal disagreement over Commission decisions and procedures, though the reporting does not link those objections specifically to the software request.

What to watch next

  • Whether the Election Commission provides further information about the software’s name and version or the basis for withholding those details.
  • Whether the Commission clarifies whether automatic flagging, AI or machine learning was used in the voter-roll checks.
  • Whether the Commission explains what safeguards apply to prevent wrongful flagging of voter records.
  • Whether the Commission provides further detail about its statement on Manish Garg’s work-allocation orders and oversight of the IT department.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
7 source articles · 5 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Center Only· 4 Center · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Asia 80% · Unknown 20%
Outlet political mix
Center Only
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
4 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
5 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (4 of 4 rated sources); comparatively few Left or Right-rated outlets have published on the event.
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (4 of 5 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

2 framing differences · 4 uncorroborated claims · 3 information gaps
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 3 reports whose article text Updat3 read; 2 other outlets were checked by headline only.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • The Times of India specifies that the Commission withheld the software’s name and version and describes an exemption involving commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property; Hindustan Times and Bhaskar English emphasize the trade-secrets and intellectual-property rationale.
  • Hindustan Times places Ayyub in Karimnagar, Telangana, while The Times of India places him in Karimpur, Telangana.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • The reported dissents, objections and letter to the cabinet secretary are attributed to an Indian Express investigation cited by Hindustan Times and Bhaskar English.
  • The Commission said no new software was developed or procured for the revision.
  • The Commission characterized the questions about automated flagging, AI or machine learning, and safeguards as requests for clarification outside Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
  • The Indian Express investigation, as summarized by Hindustan Times and Bhaskar English, reported at least 14 written dissents and objections by SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • The sources do not quantify how many voters or records the checks affected, or report any confirmed cases of wrongful flagging.
  • The sources do not identify the software or establish whether automatic flagging, AI or machine learning was used.
  • The sources do not provide the text of the full RTI exemption or any court or other public ruling on the disclosure refusal.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. Article 324 of the Constitution, which took effect on January 26, 1950, vests the conduct of elections in the Election Commission; Article 326 provides for adult suffrage.
    Background · from our historical context
  2. The Representation of the People Act, 1950, enacted on June 12, 1950, established the framework for electoral rolls for parliamentary and assembly constituencies.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. India made the Registration of Electors Rules, setting out procedures for electoral registration and claims or objections.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. The RTI framework added a later mechanism, from 2005, for requesting records held by public authorities.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. India’s Right to Information Act received presidential assent.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. India’s Right to Information Act came into force.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. The Election Commission ordered a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  8. India’s Election Commission published a draft electoral roll for Bihar after the Special Intensive Revision.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  9. Delhi’s draft electoral rolls were published during the Special Intensive Revision, excluding about 47.56 lakh electors.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  10. The Commission's reply was dated October 16.
    Reported in this story's sourcesSource:Hindustan Times

How we got here

The Election Commission’s 2002–04 Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises provide an earlier precedent for the voter-roll process at issue in the current debate.

Unlike a routine summary revision, an intensive revision involves a more thorough verification of electoral rolls; the legal framework for both forms of revision is set out in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Original sources

6 of 7 articles · Asia · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.