Back
Questions ECI on Voter Excluded Without Notice in AI-Based SIR Challenge
The on Monday pulled up the over its handling of the of electoral rolls, demanding to know why a voter was excluded without any prior notice and what action had been taken against another voter after he responded to a notice. The Division Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a petition that challenges the very legality of the SIR process, which relies on an automated, AI-driven data-matching platform called to identify and flag electors for alleged discrepancies in their enrollment forms.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate , argued that the process is the Constitution, lacks procedural safeguards, and threatens the . The matter has been adjourned to , with the ECI directed to provide detailed instructions on the specific cases raised.
Background: The SIR Process Under Scrutiny
The Special Intensive Revision is a periodic exercise undertaken by the ECI to clean up electoral rolls. However, this time the Commission has deployed a digital platform that automatically matches data from previous rolls with current submissions, flagging mismatches in names, addresses, parentage, or other details. When a match fails, the system generates notices to voters, calling them for hearings. The petitioners contend that this automated process is being executed without any human verification of physical records, without providing reasons for the mismatch, and without any transparency about the algorithm’s methodology.
Senior advocate Ravichander opened his arguments by drawing the court's attention to a statement made just a day earlier by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. At an event at , Justice Bhuyan had observed that the right to vote is an integral part of the and that any process leading to wholesale would be intrinsically arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 326. Ravichander quoted the judge: “From the persona of an Indian citizen the right to vote and be included in the voters list cannot be detached. It will like taking out the soul from the body. does not provide with two class of citizens. Citizens with voting rights and citizens without voting rights.”
Building on this, Ravichander argued that the SIR process as implemented is exactly such a scheme, one that arbitrarily excludes citizens without .
A Question of Notice: Two Petitioners’ Plight
The Division Bench focused on the specific cases of the two petitioners before it. Petitioner No. 1 had been excluded from the electoral roll without receiving any notice at all. Petitioner No. 2 had been issued a notice, attended a hearing on , and submitted his documents—yet he remained unaware of any decision taken thereafter.
Justice Koshy queried the ECI’s counsel, asking why petitioner No. 1 was struck off without notice. The counsel responded that the voter could simply file Form 6 to seek re-inclusion and pointed out that the petitioner had admitted to a mismatch in name. The court, however, was not satisfied: “Petitioner No. 1 does not know why his name is out as he has not even been issued a notice,” Justice Koshy remarked orally.
On petitioner No. 2, the court pressed for information on whether any further action had been taken after the hearing. The ECI’s counsel said she would take instructions. The court observed that if a voter has satisfactorily explained the mismatch, the authorities must take a decision promptly.
The AI Challenge: Process Without Transparency
Ravichander’s core argument went beyond the individual grievances. He challenged the entire SIR process on the ground that it is “AI-based” and “unscientific.” He asserted that the platform operates as a black box: voters are not told why a mismatch was flagged, what data was used, or how their explanations are evaluated. There is no mechanism for the voter to present any evidence beyond what the notice demands—only the specific documents requested are considered.
“Where is the question of any other thing? You only have to produce the document,” the court orally noted, validating the limited scope. But Ravichander countered that this restricted approach renders the entire exercise arbitrary and biased in favor of the automated system, with no human intervention to assess the credibility or context of discrepancies.
He further argued that the process violates the : a citizen must be given a fair opportunity to be heard, which includes knowing the reasons for the proposed action. The automated platform provides no such reasoning.
The Bench’s Reactions and Observations
The bench, while not yet issuing a final order, made several notable oral observations. Justice Koshy revealed that he himself had received a similar notice from the ECI regarding an alleged mismatch in his name. He said he had responded and clarified the query, which was about his name not appearing in a previous roll. This personal experience underscored the widespread nature of the issue.
The court asked the ECI to explain why petitioner No. 1 was excluded without notice, and to inform the court of any action taken against petitioner No. 2. It also observed that if the voter can provide a satisfactory explanation, any adverse action would then be open to challenge in court.
When the ECI’s counsel suggested that the petitioner could respond to the notice and then approach the court if needed, Ravichander objected, saying that by responding, the petitioner would be subjecting himself to a process that “screams of being unscientific.” The bench then questioned whether it should record that the petitioner was refusing to respond. Ravichander clarified that petitioner No. 2 had already responded, but that did not resolve the lack of transparency.
Constitutional Concerns: A Threat to the Right to Vote
The heart of the case lies in the constitutional challenge. The petitioners argue that the use of an unverified, unpublished algorithm to remove names from the electoral roll violates the guarantee of equality under and the principle under . Justice Bhuyan’s same-day endorsement of these values added weight to the petitioners’ stance.
Legal experts note that while the ECI has the power to revise rolls, any process that results in mass —especially without adequate notice or hearing—treads on fundamental rights. The has long held that the right to vote, though a statutory right, is part of the when viewed as an essential feature of democracy.
The petitioners contend that the ECI’s reliance on an opaque automated system shifts the burden onto voters to prove their identity without any baseline transparency. This is particularly concerning for marginalized communities, who may lack the digital literacy or resources to navigate the process.
Implications for Electoral Integrity
The outcome of this petition could have far-reaching implications for how election authorities across India conduct roll revisions. If the rules against the AI-based SIR process, it may force the ECI to revert to more manual, verifiable methods or to disclose the full workings of its algorithm. On the other hand, a judgment upholding the process could set a precedent for increased automation in electoral administration.
The case also raises broader questions about the use of AI in government decision-making. Courts across the world are grappling with similar issues—whether automated systems can replace human adjudication in matters affecting fundamental rights. In India, the right to vote is arguably the most basic political right; any erosion of it through opaque technology merits strict judicial scrutiny.
Next Steps
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on , giving the ECI time to submit detailed instructions on the two petitioners’ cases. The Commission is also expected to address the broader challenge to the SIR process itself. Senior advocate Ravichander has demanded a response on the entire methodology, emphasizing that the current system lacks any legally recognized framework.
As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched by civil rights groups, election watchdogs, and legal practitioners. The ’s observations already signal a discomfort with the lack of . Whether that discomfort leads to substantive relief for the petitioners—and a recalibration of the ECI’s digital strategy—remains to be seen.
Conclusion
The ’s intervention highlights the tension between technological efficiency and constitutional guarantees. While the ECI’s aim to clean up electoral rolls may be laudable, the method employed must pass muster under the . The right to vote is too precious to be sacrificed on the altar of uncritical automation. As Justice Bhuyan reminded the nation, any attempt to create two classes of citizens—those with the vote and those without—strikes at the soul of the Constitution. The now has the opportunity to ensure that the process remains soulful.
