Investigation raises questions over ECI software, voter deletions and claims of identifying foreign nationals

New Delhi : India’s ongoing debate over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has intensified following allegations by Union Home Minister Amit Shah that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is attempting to protect illegal infiltrators by questioning the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) electoral revision exercise. However, an investigation by The Reporters’ Collective, based on examinations of election-related software and responses to Right to Information (RTI) applications, has raised serious questions about whether the electoral authorities had the technical and administrative mechanisms necessary to identify voters as foreign nationals during the process.

In an interview on Tuesday, Shah accused Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, of attempting to shield infiltrators under the pretext of criticising the Election Commission. He also suggested that among the 13.39 crore voters reportedly deleted from electoral rolls were infiltrators whom the Congress leader was seeking to protect.

The investigation, however, presents a different picture of the procedures used to revise the electoral rolls. According to The Reporters’ Collective, the ECI’s software did not provide election officials with a dedicated option to classify voters as foreigners. Responses received from more than 100 Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in Bihar reportedly indicated that they held no records of non-citizens identified through the exercise.

These findings raise a fundamental question: if identifying illegal foreign nationals was one of the stated objectives of the revision, what mechanism was established to record, verify and report such cases?

Bihar SIR: Claims and Official Records

Bihar became the first state to undergo the Special Intensive Revision in June 2025. During the exercise, the Election Commission publicly presented the identification of alleged infiltrators as one of the objectives of the revision.

The Commission also defended the exercise before the Supreme Court when its legality and procedures were challenged. According to the investigation, the Supreme Court subsequently directed that cases involving deletions on the ground of non-citizenship be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, within a specified period.

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs, headed by Amit Shah, is responsible for important aspects of citizenship administration. However, whether the Election Commission submitted the relevant cases to the Ministry in compliance with the court’s direction remains unclear from the information presented in the investigation.

The Reporters’ Collective subsequently filed an RTI application seeking information about the Commission’s compliance and the sharing of suspected foreign-national cases with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Rather than providing a comprehensive response, the ECI reportedly referred the questions to Bihar’s election authorities.

The responses received from electoral constituencies in Bihar reportedly contained figures relating to voters classified as absent, shifted, deceased or otherwise deleted. They did not, however, identify any voters officially recorded as non-Indian citizens.

The distinction is significant. Deletion from an electoral roll does not, by itself, establish that an individual is a foreign national. Electoral records must distinguish between administrative reasons for removal and a legally established determination of citizenship status.

Software and Procedures Under Scrutiny

The investigation also examined the procedures used during subsequent phases of the SIR, including the functioning of ERONET, the software platform used by election authorities.

According to the findings, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) were instructed to identify voters who were absent, had shifted residence, appeared more than once on electoral rolls, or were deceased. The investigation reported that the prescribed workflow did not provide a corresponding category for recording voters as foreign nationals.

Another contentious feature was the treatment of voters whose names or family lineage could not be linked to earlier electoral rolls, particularly those from the 2002–2004 period. Such voters were classified as “unmapped” and could be called for hearings to establish their eligibility.

Failure to establish the required connection or produce the prescribed documentation could result in deletion from the electoral roll.

Critics argue that procedures of this nature require strong safeguards, transparent standards of evidence and an effective opportunity for affected citizens to challenge decisions. Otherwise, people who are entitled to vote may face exclusion because of missing records, migration, documentation difficulties or administrative errors.

The central concern raised by the investigation is not whether electoral rolls should be corrected, but whether the methods used are capable of achieving their stated objectives while protecting the constitutional right to participate in elections.

Uttar Pradesh: Questions Over Deletion Notices

The investigation also examined voter deletions during the SIR hearings in Uttar Pradesh. It reported that Form 7, the prescribed form used for objections to and deletion of names from electoral rolls, was being generated automatically in certain circumstances.

According to the report, approximately 86,000 voters deleted during SIR hearings in Uttar Pradesh had forms that did not specify reasons for their removal.

If confirmed by official records, such a finding would raise concerns about procedural transparency and the ability of affected voters to understand and challenge decisions. A deletion process must provide legally adequate reasons and follow the applicable statutory procedures.

The issue assumes particular importance where electoral exclusion may affect a person's ability to exercise voting rights or obtain other entitlements linked to voter registration.

Nevertheless, the precise circumstances surrounding these cases, the applicable procedures and any subsequent corrective action should be established through official records and responses from the Election Commission before definitive conclusions are drawn.

West Bengal: Electoral Revision and Political Consequences

The debate has acquired additional political significance in West Bengal, where the revision process has become a major point of contention ahead of the Assembly elections.

According to The Reporters’ Collective, West Bengal recorded a substantial number of deletions through SIR hearings, and its investigation of election officials’ software found no option to classify voters as non-Indian citizens.

The controversy has also extended to welfare benefits. The investigation reported that, following the change of government in the state, welfare-related decisions affecting people whose names had been deleted from the electoral rolls became a subject of concern.

Such developments raise a broader question about the relationship between electoral registration and access to public welfare. Any decision affecting an individual's benefits must be assessed under the applicable scheme and law. Deletion from an electoral roll should not automatically be treated as proof of foreign nationality or as conclusive evidence that a person is ineligible for every public benefit.

Political statements, administrative decisions and legal determinations must remain distinct if public confidence in democratic institutions is to be maintained.

The Larger Question: Transparency and Accountability

The controversy highlights the need for the Election Commission to explain, in clear and verifiable terms, how the SIR process identifies and handles suspected cases of non-citizenship.

If identifying foreign nationals was a stated objective, the Commission should clarify the legal basis, operational procedures, software fields, verification standards and referral mechanisms used for that purpose. It should also disclose, subject to applicable privacy and legal safeguards, the number of cases identified, the number referred to competent authorities and the status of those referrals.

At the same time, the allegations made by political leaders must be assessed against documentary evidence. Claims that large-scale voter deletions represent the removal of illegal foreign nationals cannot be conclusively established merely by citing the overall number of deleted names.

Likewise, the absence of a dedicated software category, as reported by the investigation, raises serious questions but does not, on its own, establish that no foreign nationals were identified through any other lawful procedure. That question requires a complete account of the Commission’s administrative records and referral practices.

The Election Commission’s independence and credibility depend not only on conducting electoral revisions but also on explaining the methods and evidence supporting its decisions.

Democracy Requires Evidence, Not Just Allegations

The right to vote is a cornerstone of representative democracy. Maintaining accurate electoral rolls is essential, but so is ensuring that eligible citizens are not excluded through opaque procedures or inadequate documentation.

The SIR controversy therefore goes beyond the political confrontation between the ruling party and the Opposition. It concerns the integrity of electoral administration, the protection of citizens’ voting rights and the accountability of institutions entrusted with conducting elections.

The Election Commission should provide a comprehensive clarification on the alleged identification of infiltrators, the reported absence of a dedicated classification mechanism, the cases referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the safeguards available to voters facing deletion.

Until the relevant records and procedures are made clear, the distinction between the political claim of identifying infiltrators and the documentary evidence supporting that claim will remain central to the debate.

For a democracy founded on universal adult suffrage, electoral integrity requires both accurate voter lists and transparent, lawful procedures. Neither can be secured by political assertions alone.

EDITORIAL NOTE FOR PUBLICATION: This article is based on the material supplied for editorial rewriting, including findings attributed to The Reporters’ Collective. Before publication, the editorial desk should independently verify the original investigation, the relevant Supreme Court order, the ECI’s official statements, the RTI responses and the reported figures. The 13.39-crore deletion figure, the approximately 86,000 cases in Uttar Pradesh, the court-imposed deadline and the reported West Bengal welfare decisions should be checked against primary documents. The Election Commission and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs should be offered an opportunity to respond to the specific allegations.