The SIR Exercise is Also a Technology Failure

Context

• The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 2025–26 has raised concerns regarding the autonomy of the Election Commission of India (ECI), documentation requirements and voters' eligibility.
• However, an equally significant issue is the role of technology in determining electoral inclusion and exclusion.
• For the first time, a revision of this scale has been conducted through a centralised digital platform.
• Despite India's achievements in digital infrastructure, the SIR has exposed weaknesses in software design, algorithmic decision-making and institutional accountability, raising questions about technology, democracy and constitutional rights.

Digital Transformation and Its Contradictions

• India's Digital Public Infrastructure
  • India has established itself as a global leader in digital infrastructure through Aadhaar, UPI, DigiLocker, IRCTC and income-tax e-filing.
  • Their success resulted from years of piloting, testing, continuous improvement and transparent technical specifications.
• Failure to Apply Established Practices
  • Adequate testing and validation against India's diverse demographic and linguistic conditions were missing.
  • Since electoral administration directly affects citizens' voting rights, technological errors can produce serious democratic consequences.

Age and Name Discrepancies

• Inappropriate Algorithmic Filters
  • ERONet, the ECI's electoral roll management platform, generated logical discrepancy flags using parameters such as parent-child age differences and the number of children linked to one parent.
  • These filters ignored India's social realities, particularly approximate birth records among older citizens.
  • An analysis of Delhi's draft electoral roll found that family-size checks flagged Muslim electors at a significantly higher rate, raising concerns about algorithmic discrimination.
  • The Supreme Court clarified that it had not finally ruled on the legality of this category, having permitted its use in West Bengal only as an interim arrangement.
• Linguistic and Data-Matching Problems
  • Matching present voters with relatives recorded in historical electoral rolls created further difficulties.
  • In West Bengal, Bengali-language records from 2002 were digitised and converted into English, reportedly using machine tools. Consequently, several correct names became distorted.
  • More than 1.3 crore entries were flagged in West Bengal, with over half the logical discrepancy cases reportedly involving name variations. Similar problems emerged in Telangana and Karnataka.
  • India's linguistic diversity and transliteration differences make automated name matching difficult.

Overarching Power and Weak Digital Governance

• Frequent Changes in Software
  • De-duplication software, previously considered unreliable by the Commission, was reintroduced in certain States and Union Territories.
  • Another algorithm checking voters' mapping to relatives on historical rolls required Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to repeat completed work.
  • These developments exposed the absence of an effective change-management framework, increasing administrative pressure and confusion.
• Lack of Written Instructions and Transparency
  • New software procedures were communicated through demonstration videos, video conferences and WhatsApp groups rather than formal written instructions.
  • This left Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and BLOs implementing changing rules without adequate documentation.
  • Centralised control also restricted officials' discretion, weakening accountability and citizens' ability to challenge adverse decisions.

Disconnect Between Digital Workflows and Legal Frameworks

• Non-Statutory Requirements in Digital Forms
  • The online Form 6 introduced a mandatory declaration concerning applicants' parents and grandparents, although this requirement was absent from the statutory form.
  • The Supreme Court clarified that it had not approved this modification.
  • In Delhi, existing voters whose enumeration forms were not received were directed to submit Form 6, ordinarily intended for first-time voters.
  • The Court described this as a structural incongruity.
• Technology Must Remain Subordinate to Law
  • Digital platforms must faithfully implement statutory requirements rather than introduce additional obligations.
  • Software cannot independently create legal requirements, and citizens must not face exclusion because of unauthorised digital procedures.

Questions of Timing and Administrative Readiness

• Unrealistic Deadlines
  • In Delhi, the Supreme Court questioned the need for tight deadlines when elections were not imminent.
  • Tamil Nadu and West Bengal faced greater pressure, with approximately six weeks for enumeration and final rolls scheduled for February ahead of April elections.
  • West Bengal's final roll contained more than half a crore names under adjudication.
• Electoral Timelines Versus System Readiness
  • The SIR's deadlines were driven largely by electoral schedules rather than technological preparedness.
  • Large-scale digital projects require sufficient time for testing, correction, training and grievance redressal.
  • Prioritising procedural completion over accuracy risks electoral exclusion.

Lessons for Digital Governance and Democratic Institutions

• The SIR demonstrates the importance of several safeguards in digital governance:
  • Pre-deployment testing against real demographic and linguistic data.
  • Pilot projects across diverse geographical and social settings.
  • Algorithmic transparency through published rules and decision-making criteria.
  • Effective change management before introducing new software features.
  • Written Standard Operating Procedures for officials.
  • Legal compliance between digital workflows and statutory provisions.
  • Human oversight to correct automated errors.
  • Accessible grievance redressal to protect citizens' rights.

Conclusion

• The SIR demonstrates that digital transformation requires more than technological sophistication or administrative centralisation.
• When algorithms determine electoral eligibility and access to hearings, technological errors can become instruments of democratic exclusion.
• The ECI must ensure that technology remains subordinate to constitutional principles and legal safeguards.