Telangana HC asks ECI to secure instructions on SIR procedures
The Telangana High Court on Monday directed counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to obtain instructions on the procedures being followed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, after a writ petition challenged the issuance of notices to voters over minor discrepancies in names recorded during the SIR of 2002.
A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by two citizens, S.Q. Masood and Syed Wahid Uddin. The petitioners have questioned the methodology adopted by electoral authorities to identify anomalies and dissimilarities for inclusion of citizens in the final voter list.
Petitioners challenge data-matching methods
Masood and Uddin told the court that they received notices from electoral authorities citing a mismatch between their fathers’ names as mentioned in the current electoral roll and as recorded in the 2002 SIR. They contended that, instead of following the procedure prescribed by law, officials relied on automated tools to flag discrepancies.
According to the petitioners, authorities used an Artificial Intelligence-based data-matching platform integrated with the ECINet/ERONET system. They argued that such “mechanical identification” of alleged irregularities, without adherence to the due process laid down for electoral roll verification, makes a mockery of the revision exercise and undermines the basic framework of the Constitution.
Court seeks clarity; next hearing on October 13
After hearing the submissions, the Bench asked the ECI’s counsel to secure instructions on the procedures being employed as part of the ongoing SIR and to clarify the legal basis for issuing notices founded on data comparisons with records from the 2002 revision. The matter was adjourned to October 13 for the next hearing.
What the petition seeks
The writ petition seeks a declaration regarding the legality of issuing notices to voters based on minor discrepancies detected between current electoral rolls and data from the 2002 SIR. It also questions the reliance on AI-driven data matching, asserting that such approaches diverge from the statutory process required for verifying and updating entries in the electoral roll.
Significance
The High Court’s direction places the spotlight on the tools and procedures being used by electoral authorities during the Special Intensive Revision. The upcoming hearing is expected to bring clarity on whether the methods currently in use align with statutory requirements and the constitutional safeguards applicable to maintaining and revising electoral rolls.
