The Election Commission of India has declined to identify the software used to flag errors in voter lists during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), citing trade secrets and intellectual property protections under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
EC Withholds SIR Software Details Under RTI Act
In a reply dated October 16, 2026, the Election Commission refused to share the name and version of the software used to detect errors, anomalies and inconsistencies in electoral rolls. It said the requested details involved commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property and were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The software and its technical design were not disclosed.
RTI Application Questions AI and Voter Roll Checks
The response followed an RTI application submitted on July 27 by Telangana-based social activist M A Mujeeb Ayyub. He asked which software, application, algorithm or artificial intelligence platform was used during the SIR exercise. His questions included whether technology automatically flagged voter records for verification, correction or deletion, and what happened after a record was flagged. He also sought to know whether machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision-support tools played any role in the process.
EC Says No New Software Was Developed for SIR
The Election Commission said it had neither developed nor procured new software specifically for the Special Intensive Revision. It also clarified that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), rather than software alone, decide whether names should be added to or removed from voter lists after examining facts and records. On questions about automated systems and the sequence of checks, the Commission said the requests sought clarification that did not qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Questions Remain Over Transparency of Election Technology
An Election Commission official said software and algorithm details were not usually provided in RTI replies. Reports also noted earlier refusals by manufacturers of electronic voting machines to disclose source code. The latest response leaves the technology used to flag voter-roll discrepancies unidentified publicly, while the Commission maintains that individual inclusion and exclusion decisions rest with EROs. Software-assisted detection and the legal authority to change an electoral roll are separate stages of the process.
