Pradip Dutta Roy

7. ECINET/ERONET

Controversies have also emerged surrounding ERONET, the Election Commission’s digital system for managing electoral rolls, and ECINET, its subsequent, broader platform. Questions have been raised about whether software used for electoral roll revision can restrict the decision-making powers of election officials who are legally authorised to exercise them.

The incident in Goa is noteworthy in this context. According to news reports published in September 2026, 97 voters in Goa were initially flagged for “logical discrepancies” in their records but were subsequently considered eligible. However, allegations emerged that their names could not be restored to the final electoral roll because the ECINET system lacked the necessary rollback facility once a name had been deleted. It was also reported that the office of Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer had sent eight emails within a week regarding the matter.

In another incident, six members of the same family in the Santa Cruz Assembly constituency in Goa submitted Form 8 applications to change their addresses after relocating. However, they alleged that their applications were rejected because their EPIC, or Elector Photo Identity Card, records could not be found in ERONET. Subsequently, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court questioned whether the name of a legitimate voter could be deleted merely because the software was unable to process an application. The court made it clear that administrative software cannot override the law and that a draft electoral roll, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for deleting a voter’s name.

In West Bengal, too, several Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Booth Level Officers (BLOs) have reportedly complained that they are unable to upload the necessary information to the Commission’s website, even when they try to do so. There have also been allegations that information, once uploaded, either changes automatically or is altered by others.

These incidents raise serious questions about the reliability of the Election Commission’s software systems, the scope for correcting errors, the transparency of decisions and institutional accountability.

Through the SIR exercise, electoral rolls in 16 states and three Union Territories have so far been revised. Approximately 13 crore voters have been excluded, while the number of exclusions attributed to logical discrepancies stands at 1.7 crore.

8. The Commission’s Statements and Its Latest Measures

A widely discussed report in The Indian Express stated that the two other Election Commissioners had sent 14 written notes in 10 months opposing decisions taken by the Chief Election Commissioner. It was also reported that several decisions had been taken without keeping them informed and that joint meetings had not been held, while minutes of meetings had not been recorded, among other allegations.

If these allegations were false, the two Election Commissioners could have publicly contradicted them. Yet they did not do so. Instead, what did we witness?

First, the Election Commission issued a written statement asserting that all decisions had been taken unanimously. Subsequently, following a joint meeting, certain statements were made and several measures concerning electoral roll revision were announced.

These measures reportedly included sending Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to the homes of voters classified as unmapped or issued notices over logical discrepancies to collect the necessary documents; arranging online hearings wherever required; organising special assistance camps for homeless and vulnerable voters; and providing an opportunity for excluded voters to have their names included again.

It was also announced that a committee comprising experts would be constituted to examine the legal validity and technical functioning of the ECINET system.

Recently, fresh instructions regarding these matters have reportedly been sent to all states. Even the additional annexure to Form 6 has been removed. New voters can once again apply for inclusion using the earlier version of the form.

9. The Purpose of the SIR

Electoral rolls are routinely scrutinised and revised before elections. A question naturally arises: why was the decision taken to conduct the SIR exercise across the country so suddenly?

The exercise has a declared objective: identifying illegal immigrants and removing their names from electoral rolls. There should be no disagreement about this objective. No conscientious citizen would want illegal immigrants to remain in the country or to conceal their identities and avail themselves of government benefits.

However, we have witnessed firsthand, during the Assam NRC exercise, the difficulties that ordinary, legitimate citizens can face when the search for illegal immigrants is undertaken, as well as the ultimate outcome of such an exercise.

This is not to suggest that illegal immigration does not occur in our country. Driven by economic hardship, security concerns or the desire for a better life, people living on the margins cross barbed-wire fences and enter other countries. This is a phenomenon observed throughout the world. But how many such people are there?

One cannot help suspecting that doubts about their numbers are deliberately propagated, despite the absence of any solid factual basis.

Recall the report by former Assam Governor S. K. Sinha, which claimed that lakhs of illegal immigrants were entering the state every day, thereby altering the demographic composition of both the state and the country. Did the outcome of the NRC validate that claim? Certainly not.

We know that among the 19 lakh people excluded from the final NRC, many were cases in which a son’s name appeared but his father’s did not, or a sister’s name appeared while her brother’s was missing, and so on. If the process of hearings is completed through the issuance of rejection slips, perhaps at most one or two lakh people may ultimately fail to secure a place in the final list.

Furthermore, if any illegal immigrants remain outside this group, they are already outside the electoral system and do not enjoy the associated benefits of voting or access to government entitlements. Consequently, it is not possible to identify them simply by revising electoral rolls.

For a long time, similar suspicions were circulated in West Bengal, with claims that millions of illegal immigrants were residing in the state. Yet, when the Election Commission is now being asked how many illegal immigrants or Rohingya people have been identified through the SIR exercise, it reportedly directs the questioners to the Union Home Ministry. When the Home Ministry is approached, it refers them back to the Election Commission.

Based on the evidence emerging from the Assam NRC, which was conducted under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court, my personal assessment is that even if it were possible to identify every illegal immigrant across the country, their total number would probably remain between five and ten lakh—a negligible figure for a country with a population of approximately 130 crore.

What is required to prevent illegal immigration is a strengthening of border security through modern technology.

However, opposition parties allege that the SIR has an undeclared objective: selectively deleting the names of opposition supporters—in other words, “vote chori” or stealing votes. In West Bengal, for instance, they allege that minority and women voters, many of whom traditionally voted for the Trinamool Congress, have been disproportionately excluded.

On the other hand, BJP supporters argue that if this allegation were true, how could opposition parties have won elections and formed governments in three states despite Gyanesh Kumar being in office as Chief Election Commissioner?

In this context, a report by renowned psephologist and journalist Prannoy Roy is noteworthy. In his analysis of West Bengal’s previous elections, he presented data suggesting how the BJP had benefited from the SIR exercise.

Challenging his argument, the West Bengal BJP presented data from five Assembly constituencies where the highest numbers of names had been deleted under the SIR exercise. It pointed out that BJP candidates had lost in all five constituencies. In contrast, it identified another five constituencies where the number of deletions was among the lowest, yet BJP candidates had won in all five.

In a recent analysis published on his Decoder platform, Prannoy Roy examined these claims further. He showed that in the five constituencies where BJP candidates had lost, opposition candidates had already secured an average vote share of more than 30 per cent in the previous election. Following the SIR exercise, the BJP candidates in these constituencies reportedly experienced an average swing of 10 percentage points in their favour.

On the other hand, among the five constituencies cited as victories for the BJP, its candidates had also won three in the previous election. In the remaining two, they had lost by very narrow margins. In these five constituencies, the swing in favour of BJP candidates was only around two percentage points.

In other words, electoral victories and defeats depend on the overall distribution and differences in vote shares. Even if the SIR exercise increases a party’s vote share, it may not necessarily alter the final election result.

For ordinary citizens, the relationship with the democratic system is largely confined to exercising their right to vote once every five years. In the intervening period, they contribute a portion of their hard-earned income to the government through income tax and sales taxes, with the expectation that these resources will be used for the overall development of society.

If citizens believe that the desired development has not taken place, the only effective means available to them to express their dissatisfaction is to exercise their voting rights in the next election.

Therefore, impartiality is not the only essential requirement of a healthy democratic electoral system. It is equally important that public understanding of the system and confidence in its functioning remain beyond reasonable doubt and worthy of trust. Otherwise, the very foundations of democracy begin to weaken.

For a country like India—the world’s largest democracy, whose democratic traditions command respect across the globe—the numerous controversies surrounding the Election Commission in recent times are certainly undesirable.

What was needed was a clear explanation from the Election Commission on all these issues and a willingness to sit down at the negotiating table with those raising questions. Government intervention, too, was undesirable in this context, because the Election Commission is an independent constitutional body. Government measures aimed at suppressing protests are only deepening suspicions.

Giving due importance to dissenting opinions is a fundamental responsibility in a democracy. Therefore, to resolve the unrest that has emerged during this festive season, both the Election Commission and the state must return to dialogue. There is no alternative if public faith and confidence are to be restored.

The views expressed are the author’s personal opinions.The author is the founding president of the student organisation AKSA and an advocate at the Gauhati High Court.