Nayak is intrigued that denial of the existence of even basic information has become a policy matter. In his view, the Commission appears to prefer opacity over transparency, despite its constitutional mandate and repeated Supreme Court backing.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under renewed scrutiny for its handling of recent Right to Information (RTI) applications that sought to probe accountability mechanisms for electoral officials and details of nationwide consultations with political parties. According to documents shared by Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the Commission’s replies were delayed, evasive, and in some cases denied the very existence of information the ECI had publicly claimed to collect.
RTI 1: Accountability of Electoral Officers in Bihar Roll Revision
The first RTI intervention, filed on June 27, 2025, came in the backdrop of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls ordered on June 24, 2025, ahead of state assembly elections.
The SIR aimed to remove ineligible voters – especially those suspected to be foreign nationals – and ensure no eligible citizen was excluded. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs (AEROs) are legally responsible for verifying voter eligibility before adding names to rolls.
Nayak’s RTI sought:
- The legal provisions for initiating action against EROs/AEROs who wrongly add suspected foreign nationals.
- The authority competent to initiate such action.
- A state- and UT-wise list of officers proceeded against since January 2015 for such violations.
The ECI’s reply, arriving five days beyond the statutory 30-day limit, cited Section 32 of the RPA 1950 but refused to interpret laws, calling the request “hypothetical.” For the other two queries, the Commission claimed it had no such data and speculated it might be available with Chief Electoral Officers or District Election Officers – yet refused to transfer the RTI to them, citing “multiple public authorities.”
Nayak argues the response is problematic on multiple fronts. Section 32, he says, is a weak, omnibus penal clause covering breach of official duty but does not specifically address wrongful inclusion of ineligible voters. More serious provisions, such as fraud or falsification under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (or its IPC predecessors), could apply – but the ECI made no mention of them.
Critically, Section 32(3) requires ECI or CEO approval before prosecution of errant officers. The Commission’s claim of having no record of action under this provision since 2015 raises the question: has it never been invoked despite public acknowledgments – such as in the Bihar SIR order – of wrongful inclusions?
RTI 2: Details of Political Party Consultations
The second RTI, filed April 25, 2025, referred to the ECI’s own April 1 press note announcing its “biggest engagement drive” with political parties – 4,719 meetings nationwide over 25 days, involving more than 28,000 party representatives.
The meetings, ordered by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, aimed to resolve pending electoral process issues within existing laws. CEOs were instructed to submit action taken reports (ATRs) so unresolved matters could be escalated to the Commission.
Nayak’s RTI asked for:
- Meeting dates, agendas, and durations.
- Lists of participating political parties.
- Copies of ATRs from all CEOs, DEOs, and EROs.
- Correspondence or notings on unresolved issues.
The reply was swift – within 30 days – but stark: the ECI said it had none of the requested information and advised approaching state and UT CEOs directly, again refusing to transfer the RTI due to “separate public authorities.”
This, Nayak says, strains credibility. The Commission’s own press note stated ATRs were being sought from CEOs, implying central collation. If the CPIO’s claim is accurate, it suggests either non-compliance by CEOs or a breakdown in record-keeping. Either way, political parties themselves may need to disclose what they raised and what remains unresolved.
Opacity as Policy?
Nayak, a veteran transparency advocate, says appeals against such evasive replies rarely succeed – the ECI’s first appellate authority “invariably” upholds them, while the Central Information Commission’s backlog means a year-long wait for second appeals.
Nayak is intrigued that denial of the existence of even basic information has become a policy matter. In his view, the Commission appears to prefer opacity over transparency, despite its constitutional mandate and repeated Supreme Court backing.
The stakes, he warns, are institutional credibility. “With enormous power comes enormous responsibility. The ECI would do well to introspect and change its preference for opacity because such a policy amounts to putting an axe to the roots of its own credibility.”
Context: Bihar’s SIR and the Political Climate
The Bihar SIR is the first intensive revision in the state since 2003. The process involves house-to-house enumeration, new declaration forms for out-of-state applicants, and strict verification to prevent duplicate or fraudulent entries. Political parties have been given a formal role, with Booth Level Agents allowed to submit bulk applications under conditions.
The ECI has framed the exercise as a constitutional necessity to safeguard roll integrity in the face of migration, urbanisation, and suspected enrolment of non-citizens. Yet the RTI responses suggest a reluctance to discuss accountability for officers overseeing this process.
Similarly, the large-scale party consultations were touted as a step toward collaborative problem-solving. The lack of transparency about their outcomes raises concerns about whether such exercises are more symbolic than substantive.
What Next?
Civil society groups and opposition parties may now press the ECI to disclose:
- Whether Section 32 or other legal provisions have ever been used against EROs/AEROs.
- The fate of ATRs from the March 2025 consultations.
- Measures to ensure errant officers are held accountable.
With assembly elections looming in Bihar and several other states, the tension between electoral integrity and institutional transparency is likely to intensify.
For now, Nayak’s interventions have put the ball squarely in the Commission’s court. Whether it chooses to play it, or keep it behind closed doors, will shape public trust in one of India’s most powerful constitutional bodies.
[This report is based on RTI applications and related documents shared by Venkatesh Nayak, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.]
