The Election Commission has refused to disclose the name and version of the software used to identify errors and inconsistencies in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). In an RTI reply dated October 16, 2026, the poll body cited commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property as reasons for withholding the details, according to Hindustan Times.

The refusal has triggered fresh questions about transparency in India's voter-list verification process. Although the Commission says electoral officers make the final decisions on inclusion and deletion, the reported response does not establish whether artificial intelligence or automated tools help identify records requiring further scrutiny.

Election Commission RTI Reply: What Was Disclosed and Withheld?

The application was filed on July 27 by M A Mujeeb Ayyub, a social activist from Karimnagar, Telangana. He asked for the name and version of the software, application or AI platform used to identify discrepancies in electoral rolls during SIR. The applicant also sought details of whether voter records were automatically flagged for verification, correction or deletion.

In its October 16 response, the poll body said no new software had been developed or procured specifically for the exercise.

However, it declined to identify the existing software, invoking Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The provision covers certain commercially sensitive information, including trade secrets and intellectual property, where disclosure could harm a third party's competitive position. The response did not establish whether automated classification, machine learning or predictive analytics were used during SIR.

What Does the RTI Act Allow the Commission to Withhold?

The applicant's questions went beyond the software's identity. He also wanted to know whether the system could generate false positives and what safeguards existed to prevent genuine voters from being incorrectly flagged. The Commission reportedly treated those questions as requests for clarification rather than information covered by Section 2(f). On the question of who reviews flagged anomalies, it also invoked Section 8(1)(g), which protects certain information where disclosure could endanger individuals or reveal confidential sources.

However, the RTI Act does not create an absolute exemption for trade secrets. Under Section 8(1)(d), disclosure may still be warranted when the competent authority determines that a larger public interest justifies it. The official text of the law also permits public-interest disclosure in circumstances where the benefit outweighs harm to protected interests. That distinction matters because withholding information under an exemption is not the same as establishing that it can never be disclosed.

Voter Rolls Anomalies: What Is Known About the System?

The RTI application focused on voter rolls anomalies, including errors and inconsistencies that could require further verification. The Commission maintained that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), rather than software, are the statutory authorities responsible for deciding whether names should be included or excluded. This establishes who is legally accountable for final decisions, but does not fully explain how records reach the verification stage. There is also an important distinction between the undisclosed detection software and ECINET, the Commission's publicly acknowledged digital platform.

In a September 26 government announcement, the Election Commission said field officers had role-based access to ECINET and that a committee, including an independent technical expert, would review its compliance with electoral laws and rules. The announcement also described a process in which booth-level officers visit certain voters, collect documents and upload them for ERO decisions. However, these details do not independently establish which software or algorithm was used to detect the inconsistencies questioned in the RTI application.

Congress Questions Secrecy Around ECINET

The refusal has intensified the political dispute surrounding SIR. On October 25, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh questioned the decision to withhold software details and raised concerns about possible AI use. According to The New Indian Express, Congress alleged that ECINET could be linked to centralised manipulation of electoral data.

The party also demanded the suspension of SIR and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

These remain political allegations. The RTI response does not establish that ECINET was the undisclosed detection tool, that AI was used to manipulate electoral records, or that centralised manipulation occurred. The dispute over voter rolls anomalies therefore involves two separate questions: whether the verification technology should be more transparent and whether any actual wrongdoing can be demonstrated.

What Happens Next for Voter-Roll Transparency?

The Election Commission has identified EROs as the officials responsible for final electoral-roll decisions. But the reported reply leaves technical questions unanswered about how discrepancies are detected and what checks are used before records undergo further scrutiny. Former Chief Election Commissioner O P Rawat told Hindustan Times that the applicant should pursue an appeal to seek the information.

For voters, greater clarity about the technology could help explain how suspicious entries are identified and how incorrect flags can be challenged. As of October 26, 2026, the specific software used for anomaly detection had not been publicly identified in the reports reviewed. Whether further disclosures emerge through an RTI appeal or subsequent official clarification remains unresolved.