Election Commission Withholds SIR Software Details, Cites Trade Secrets and IPR Under RTI Act

New Delhi, October 26, 2026:** The Election Commission of India (ECI) has refused to disclose the name and version of the software used to identify errors and irregularities in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, citing commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property rights under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In a response dated October 16, the poll body stated that the requested software information was exempt from disclosure under the law. However, the Commission clarified that no new software had been developed or procured specifically for the SIR exercise and maintained that decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of voters are made by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) based on facts and records. ## RTI Application Seeks Details of Software and AI Tools The response followed an RTI application filed on July 27 by social activist M A Mujeeb Ayyub from Telangana. The applicant sought information about the software, applications, algorithms or artificial intelligence platforms used to identify errors, anomalies and inconsistencies in voter records during the SIR process. The application also sought clarification on whether the systems automatically flagged voter records for verification, correction or deletion and what procedure was followed after such records were identified. Additionally, the applicant asked whether artificial intelligence, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision-support systems were used during the revision exercise. He also sought details of safeguards intended to prevent genuine voters from being incorrectly flagged and information about the authority responsible for reviewing such cases before action was taken. ## Election Commission Invokes RTI Exemptions In its response, the Election Commission invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides an exemption for certain information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm a third party's competitive position. Regarding questions about automated systems, AI tools and the workflow followed after voter records were flagged, the Commission stated that the information sought amounted to a request for clarification and did not fall within the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission also declined to provide certain details about the authority reviewing flagged records, citing Section 8(1)(g), which covers specified information whose disclosure could endanger a person's life or physical safety or reveal confidential sources of information. Consequently, the response did not identify the software's name or version or provide a detailed explanation of whether AI-based tools were used to detect voter-roll discrepancies. ## EROs Responsible for Voter Inclusion and Exclusion The Election Commission maintained that Electoral Registration Officers of the respective constituencies are the statutory authorities responsible for preparing and revising electoral rolls. Referring to Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Commission stated that decisions concerning the inclusion or exclusion of an elector are taken by the relevant ERO on the basis of facts and records. The distinction is significant because identifying a discrepancy in a voter record and making a final decision about a person's inclusion in the electoral roll are separate matters. The Commission's response emphasised the statutory responsibility of electoral registration officials but did not disclose the requested technical details. ## Transparency Questions Surround SIR Exercise The refusal comes amid continuing scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision process and questions about how discrepancies in electoral rolls are identified and reviewed. The information sought through the RTI application was intended to establish which digital systems were being used, whether automated tools played a role in identifying records for review and what safeguards existed against incorrect identification. With the software details withheld, these specific questions remain unanswered in the Commission's response. The refusal itself does not establish that any voter records were wrongly deleted or that automated systems made final decisions about voter eligibility. Former Chief Election Commissioner O P Rawat reportedly advised the RTI applicant to pursue an appeal before the competent authority to seek the information. ## What Happens Next? The RTI response leaves open the possibility of further proceedings through the applicable appeal mechanism. An appeal could seek a review of the Commission's decision to withhold the requested information under the cited exemptions. For now, the Election Commission has maintained that no new software was developed or procured specifically for SIR and that Electoral Registration Officers remain responsible for decisions regarding voter inclusion and exclusion. The issue highlights the continuing debate over access to information about the technology used in electoral administration and the balance between legal exemptions, intellectual property protections and public transparency.