Telangana HC asks ECI why voter was excluded without notice during SIR

The Telangana High Court on Monday sought an explanation from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on why a petitioner was excluded from the electoral roll without being served notice and what action was taken after another petitioner responded to a notice during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ petition challenging the use of AI-assisted automation in the SIR process in S Q Masood and another vs Election Commission of India and others.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 13.

Senior advocate L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the SIR process involved AI-based automation without any specific legal authority. He alleged that voters were being excluded from electoral rolls without adequate notice or verification of physical records and that Electoral Registration Officers were not exercising due diligence.

Ravichander also questioned the transparency of the ECINet platform's methodology, arguing that it had not been publicly disclosed and that the process lacked adequate human intervention.

He further submitted that voters who responded to notices were not being informed about the outcome. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was excluded from the electoral roll without receiving any notice.

The petitioners also contended that the process of removing names from electoral rolls affected the right to vote and relied on an earlier observation by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in support of their arguments.

Responding to the plea, counsel for the ECI said a notice had been issued to the second petitioner over a mismatch in his father's name between the current and previous electoral rolls. The hearing on the notice was scheduled for September 15, the counsel said.

As for the first petitioner, the ECI submitted that he could seek inclusion in the electoral roll by filing Form 6, since he had admitted to a mismatch in his name.

During the hearing, Justice Koshy said he too had received a similar notice and had responded to it.

The Bench then questioned the ECI on why the first petitioner had been excluded without notice and what decision was taken after the second petitioner responded to the notice on September 15.

The court also questioned whether a decision had been taken after the petitioner explained the discrepancy.

On the use of AI in the process, the Bench orally observed that the element of bias would not be present, to which Ravichander argued that the methodology lacked legal recognition.

The court did not record any finding on the merits of the rival contentions.

The matter will be heard next on October 13.