Politics
Election Commission orders review of ECINet access controls
The review tests who controls voter-roll access across Indian states.
The review tests who controls voter-roll access across Indian states.
A dispute inside India’s Election Commission has raised a basic question about voter rolls: who controls the system used to add, delete or restore names? Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi warned that and were becoming more centralised. They said might not have full access. They questioned whether central IT officials could limit powers given to these officials, affecting appeals and other roll updates.
The Commission says is decentralised. It says each official’s access matches their s, while central controls protect data from tampering. But to change a roll is different from technical power to turn access on or off. The Commission has ordered a review by a senior election official and an . Its credibility will depend on whether the review makes access decisions auditable, protects login details, handles complaints and identifies who is responsible when field officials cannot act.
The Election Commission said had under their statutory powers and appointed a committee, including an independent IIT or IIIT expert, to review compliance with election laws and rules. The review had not yet reported findings on whether further access flexibility or other controls were needed.
The Commission ordered a review led by a Senior Deputy Election Commissioner and including an independent expert from an . The panel was asked to check whether ECINet complies with and to report to the Commission. The review creates a formal mechanism to examine statutory access, cybersecurity, credentials, and system changes.
The dispute concerned whether election officials had appropriate to and for their statutory duties. The Election Commission subsequently ordered a review to assess whether complies with election laws and rules.
The Commission said is a technological platform through which field officers receive according to their . It maintained that headquarters officials cannot perform functions legally assigned to CEOs, DEOs or EROs. The response distinguished legal authority to update rolls from technical permissions within the system, while leaving the reported access problems contested.
Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised concerns about centralisation of electoral-roll data and access controls, including whether technical restrictions could affect statutory field officials' work. Reports differ on the details and recipients of related communications.
The two commissioners reportedly recorded at least 14 objections over about ten months, including concerns about , electoral-roll database access, IT restrictions and . Their objections questioned whether software changes could prevent statutory officials from independently carrying out their duties. The dispute widened from individual access failures to the governance of the Commission's IT division.
Sukhbir Singh Sandhu recorded concerns that some state and district election officials lacked complete ERONet access and questioned whether centralised control at the level could restrict statutory officials' ability to perform electoral-roll duties.
Reports said , and had raised concerns about incomplete access to and its effect on their statutory electoral-roll duties. The specific functions affected were not uniformly established.
Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi raised concerns about the increasing centralisation of the . He proposed an audit to verify that only the responsible for electoral rolls held credentials to change voter data. The objection framed the dispute as a question of legal authority, database control and IT oversight.