The Election Commission of India (ECI) has said it has no information on what constitutes a “logical discrepancy” — the category under which many voters were flagged during the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
My Vote, My Right—a coalition of civil society groups—said a member of the coalition filed an RTI application seeking the definition of “logical discrepancies” in any official document, as well as the number of notices issued to voters across the 10 States and Union Territories where the SIR has been completed.
In its response, the ECI said the information was not available with the Commission.
“The information sought by you is not available in the Commission. It may be available with the Office of the CEO of States/UTs,” the ECI said in its response on August 13.
During Phase II of the SIR, the ECI introduced a process to flag voters as having discrepancies, issue them notices, and ask them to produce one of 11 prescribed documents to establish their eligibility to vote. Several voters were informed that “anomalies have been detected” or that “logical discrepancies have been detected” in their records.
Media reports have since raised questions about the software and criteria used to flag voters. Reports suggested that voters were flagged for discrepancies such as differences in the spelling of names or where the age gap between a voter and their parent was less than 15 years.
In Karnataka, The Hindu reported that the state may have used 10 criteria to identify such discrepancies. However, the ECI has not publicly issued any circular or order defining the criteria under which voters are being flagged.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka has also not provided a written clarification despite civil society organisations repeatedly seeking information about the process, the coalition said.
The coalition said the ECI’s RTI response raises questions about the basis on which voters were identified under the “logical discrepancies” category and subjected to additional documentation requirements.
It also questioned how such a process was implemented when the ECI itself says it does not have information on the definition of the category or the number of notices issued.
My Vote, My Right said the lack of clarity over the criteria and documentation for flagging voters threatens transparency in the electoral roll revision process and could place an additional burden on voters seeking to establish their eligibility.