Congress calls EC’s SIR response ‘damage control’, says concerns remain unaddressed

Responding to the Election Commission’s Saturday (September 26, 2026) night announcement of multiple steps to address concerns about the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the Congress on Sunday (September 27) termed it a “desperate attempt at damage control” that “hides all and reveals nothing”.

Congress general secretary in-charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, said the proposed measures amounted to an admission that the exercise had been a “disaster”, warning that the “piecemeal” steps for deleted or at-risk voters would do little to mitigate what he called “mass disenfranchisement”.

Mr. Ramesh questioned several of the assurances given by the EC, including its plan to visit the homes of electors who have received notices instead of requiring them to attend public hearings.

“We know that in practice these visits were sparse and sporadic. What is the value of promising a second round of visits which likely will not happen? The logic of repeating a process done poorly once must be examined,” he said.

‘Colossal waste’

Questioning the rationale of the SIR process itself, which he described as a “colossal waste” of resources, Mr. Ramesh said that nearly 14 crore voters deleted across the three phases were now being asked to apply afresh for inclusion in the electoral rolls. The targeted deletion of marginalised voters was meant to benefit the BJP, he said.

The Congress leader said the EC had failed to address concerns about ECINet, which he claimed had been used to delete eligible voters and override Electoral Registration Officers. The EC’s proposal to review the software’s compliance with existing laws was an admission that its legality was in question, Mr. Ramesh said. He asked whether the issues flagged in Goa had occurred elsewhere, including in West Bengal. He also questioned the lack of transparency over ECINet’s operation and the use of artificial intelligence in electoral roll preparation.

Form 6 changes

Mr. Ramesh further alleged that an illegal change to Form 6 had not been adequately explained. He said the EC had relied on a Supreme Court judgment of May 27, permitting the addition of a new declaration in Form 6, to defend the change. However, he argued that, in July, the modification had been made to the online Form 6 for all voters, and not only for those covered under the SIR exercise.

“The same judgment also states that the ECI on its own cannot depart from the statutory procedure without a rational basis,” he said.

Mr. Ramesh also contended that the non-SIR Form 6 route being offered to voters was misleading because the Special Summary Revision (SSR) had remained frozen since 2024, and no non-SIR voter roll was being published through which voters could have their names added.

He further argued that the Commission’s assurances on meeting procedures and compliance effectively acknowledged that established norms had not been followed, describing the situation as deeply troubling for a constitutional authority.