Election Commission Dodges RTI Queries on Special Intensive Revision

Vinita Deshmukh 21 August 2025

Public Interest

Just to recall, the election commission of India (ECI) ordered the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar in June to weed out voters who were allegedly ineligible to vote, as per the election laws and rules.

As per the rules, no person can go to an electoral registration officer (ERO) or an assistant electoral registration officer (AERO) and demand that his/ her name be included in the voter list nor hack into the ECI's digital electoral rolls database and add their names to the list. There is a detailed procedure involved which entails the election officers needing to approve and sign the form.

So, on 27 June 2025, RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak filed an RTI application seeking the following information:

A copy of the legal provisions for initiating action against EROs/ AEROs for including individuals later suspected to be foreign nationals.
The designation of the officer or authority empowered to initiate such action.
A list of cases where such action has been initiated since 1 January 2015.

After 35 days, ECI’s central public information officer (CPIO), Shilpi Srivastava, replied that providing legal interpretation was outside the RTI’s purview, although Mr Nayak had merely asked for a copy of the legal provisions. As for the officer empowered to initiate such action and a list of cases wherein action has been taken against errant officers, the CPIO replied that it may be available with state-level chief electoral officers or district election officers.

RTI activist Nayak stated that “Any wrongdoing points to a failure in due diligence by EROs or AEROs, and should be met with action under broader penal laws such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or its successor, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Also, more shocking is that the ECI has no record of action against errant officials since 2015, despite acknowledging the presence of ineligible names in its June 2024 Bihar SIR order.”

This led to Mr Nayak filing another RTI application in April 2025 seeking details about a nationwide consultation exercise launched by ECI under the leadership of the current chief election commissioner.

According to an official press release dated 1 April 2025, ECI had instructed CEOs, DEOs, and EROs to conduct thousands of meetings with political parties to address pending issues in the electoral process. Within just 25 days, 40 CEO-level meetings, 800 DEO-level meetings, and 3,879 ERO-level meetings were reportedly held, involving over 28,000 party representatives.

Mr Nayak sought the following information from ECI, under the RTI Act: The dates of these meetings, state/ UT-wise; Agenda notes for each meeting; Duration of meetings; List of participating political parties; Action Taken Reports (ATRs) from the meetings, and; Internal records of ECI's follow-up on unresolved issues. Shockingly, but predictably, the same CPIO, Ms Srivastava, again claimed that the ECI had no information regarding any of the points raised. RTI activist Nayak was advised to approach each state’s CEO directly, with the CPIO refusing to transfer the request on the grounds that the CEOs are independent public authorities.

Rues Mr Nayak, “A reply directly contradicts the ECI’s own press note, which explicitly stated that ATRs were to be submitted to the commission for further action. I am surprised that no such records exist. Either the ATRs were never submitted, indicating non-compliance with ECI instructions, or the ECI is withholding information it publicly declared it would collect. In either case, accountability suffers.’’

RTI activist Nayak is filing a first appeal but several of his first appeals to ECI’s appellate authority have rarely yielded results, while second appeals to the CIC are bogged down by delays due to unfilled vacancies, eight of them as of now, he says.

“What is most troubling,” concludes Mr Nayak, “is that the denial of even the most basic information, clearly documented in the ECI’s own communications, has now become a matter of policy. This preference for opacity, especially in a constitutional body entrusted with safeguarding democracy, is tantamount to putting an axe to the roots of its own credibility.”

(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)

Comments