How the Election Commission’s IT System for Electoral Roll Became a Point of Internal Dispute
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Concerns over the Election Commission of India's (ECI) electoral-roll software had been raised internally for months before two Election Commissioners took their objections outside the poll panel, with questions focusing on who controlled the voter database and whether technology was limiting the powers of statutory election officials, as per the Indian Express report.
The concerns centred on ERONet, the software used by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to maintain electoral rolls, and ECINet, the ECI's newer integrated technology platform.
It began with concerns over ERO powers
The first concerns date back to November 4, 2025, when, acting on Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu's directions, Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar wrote to senior ECI officials.
The communication, reported by the Indian Express, stressed that statutory functions of Electoral Registration Officers, District Election Officers and Chief Electoral Officers had to be exercised by those officials themselves.
It also said IT systems should not restrict the statutory powers of these officers.
The concern resurfaced on January 2, 2026, when Kumar again wrote to the IT division, asking that the system should not restrict an ERO's discretion in dealing with electoral-roll matters.
ECINet brings the systems together
On January 22, the ECI launched ECINet, bringing together more than 40 existing applications and portals used for election-related work.
The platform was intended to integrate the Commission's technology systems, but questions over who had access to and control over the electoral-roll database continued.
Sandhu questions IT developments
On April 16, Sandhu recorded concerns about the IT division developing new modules and portals without bringing them to his knowledge or placing them before the Commission.
He said he had learnt about some developments through the media and sought proper briefings and approvals before such activities were undertaken.
The issue was therefore no longer only about how EROs used the software. It had also become a question of how the ECI's own IT division was functioning and who was overseeing it.
Joshi warns of ‘gradual centralisation’
On May 29, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi took the concern further, describing what he called the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database.”
Joshi proposed an audit to establish that only the concerned statutory authorities had credentials to make changes to voter data.
He also suggested involving an outside IIT expert and proposed periodic checks to ensure that ECINet and changes to the electoral-roll systems remained compliant with the law.
Sandhu backs the audit
On July 13, Sandhu endorsed Joshi's proposal for an audit, saying it would improve the system and should be placed before the Commission.
But on August 14, Sandhu recorded that he was unaware of any action taken on the two Commissioners' earlier notes.
By then, concerns over access to the electoral-roll database had become more specific.
Who controls ERONet?
In his August note, Sandhu said CEOs, DEOs and EROs had reported that they did not have “proper and complete access” to ERONet.
He alleged that their ability to perform their statutory functions had been curtailed by “centralised control of ERONet at DG(IT) level.”
Sandhu also questioned whether the Election Commission's Director General of IT had the legal authority to restrict the access and operational freedom of statutory election officials.
He called for full access to be restored and sought certification from Chief Electoral Officers that statutory authorities had unrestricted access to ERONet.
The IT dispute reaches the Cabinet Secretary
The issue escalated in late July when the ECI's internal work allocation was changed.
On July 28, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, who had been given additional charge of administration, changed the allocation of work within the Commission. The order removed Sanjay Kumar from oversight of the IT division.
That mattered because Kumar had been a layer through which IT-related matters were routed to the three-member Commission.
The following day, July 29, Sandhu and Joshi separately approached Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan over the change.
They objected to the removal of this layer of oversight and described the move as a violation of the law governing the Commission.
On July 30, the two Commissioners jointly set aside the work-allocation order and directed that the previous arrangement continue until the Commission reached consensus on any change.
From software to institutional control
The internal dispute therefore went beyond the technical functioning of election software.
The questions raised by Sandhu and Joshi concerned who could access the electoral-roll database, who could alter it, how much discretion remained with statutory election officials, and who within the ECI had oversight of the IT division.
The concerns emerged as the ECI was conducting the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls across States and Union Territories, making the functioning of its digital infrastructure particularly significant.
The Indian Express reported that it sent the ECI and the two Commissioners questions about the objections and their resolution, but received no response.This is a better fit if the story itself is “ECI IT system under internal scrutiny” rather than another “14 objections timeline.”
