'ECI Dodging Accountability, Filing RTIs Futile Now': RTI Activist

Activist questions ECI's evasive RTI replies amid voter roll controversies.

Venkatesh Nayak filed RTIs seeking info from the ECI and was met with little to no information.

(Photo: The Quint)

This year, RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak filed two applications on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar and the meetings of the Election Commission of India (ECI), respectively. However, he was denied any concrete or useful information both times, giving rise to questions of transparency and eroding trust in the ECI.

"Despite taking so much flak every week, every month and every year in recent times, the ECI seems to think that opacity will serve its purpose better than transparency," notes Nayak, Director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Delhi.

These RTIs become important, given the 65 lakh names being deleted from voter rolls in Bihar's SIR. The Quint also reported that 24 out of 40 Lok Sabha constituencies in the state, the number of deleted voters is more than the victory margin during the Lok Sabha elections held in 2024.

Additionally, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's presser on 7 August — where he elaborated on proofs of "vote chori," listing over 1 Lakh fake voters in Mahadevapura assembly constituency in Karnataka — has put ECI under limelight again.

Hence, while answers are being demanded from the ECI, the question is, what happens when RTIs are filed to seek those answers?

We'll explain through two RTIs filed by Nayak.

Speaking with The Quint, Nayak said, "The purpose of the RTIs was to obtain information that the self proclaimed 'very transparent' ECI does not disclose voluntarily. It's approach to disclosure in recent years has gone back to 'need to know' philosophy of the pre-RTI era."

First RTI: Any Action Against Electoral Registration Officers?

A major reason given in this order for launching the SIR was to weed out persons who are allegedly ineligible to vote as per the elections laws and rules.

However, Nayak emphasised that no person can go to the an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or an Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) and demand that his/her name be included in the voter list.

An ineligible person cannot get his/her name included in the electoral rolls unless the ERO/AERO signs off on the application form after completing the detailed procedure provided in Act and the Rules.

So, the ultimate responsibility for including names of ineligible persons in the voter lists lies with the EROs/AEROs.

In this regard, he filed an RTI on 27 June 2025, seeking information on the grounds that there is inclusion of individuals who are later suspected to be foreign nationals in the electoral rolls of Lok Sabha and/or Vidhan Sabha seats.

Under such a circumstance, his RTI asked about legal provision under which action can be taken against EROs and AEROs, the designated officer who can carry out such action and the official state and union lists of EROs and AEROs against whom action has already been taken.

RTI filed by Nayak in June 2025 on SIR wrt to EROs/AEROs.

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

But the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Shilpi Srivastava responded, "It is informed that providing legal advice/opinion/interpretation of election laws and providing replies to hypothetical questions is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. However, in this regard you may refer to section 32 of the R. P. Act, 1950."

As for the second and third question in the RTI, she wrote that the information sought is not available with the Commission and 'hypothesied' that it may be available with the Chief Electoral Officers and District Election Officers of the concerned States and UTs.

Reply to his RTI.

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

Nayak pointed out that it the Act referred to by the ECI in its reply is only related to non-performance and not strong enough to cover the serious problem of inclusion of ineligible persons, because the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 contain an elaborate procedure which EROs and AEROs must follow to determine whether a person is or not eligible for entering their names into the electoral rolls while updating the rolls.

It is crystal clear, he said, that Section 32(3) of the RP Act, 1950 cannot be invoked against an errant ERO/AERO without the approval of the ECI or the CEO of the concerned State/UT. The ECI claims that it has no data about the use of this provision to fix the accountability of such errant officers since 2015.

Nayak asked, "Is this because this provision has never been invoked despite ECI's knowledge of the inclusion of ineligible persons which is demonstrated in its June 2024 Bihar SIR order? Why has the ECI not acted to probe the phenomenon of wrongful inclusion of ineligible persons in the electoral rolls, so far? Or is the ECI trying to shield the errant offices for whatever reason? Both citizens and Opposition Parties must demand answers from the ECI."

The ECI must urgently disclose on what material evidence it has deleted 65 lakh names from the voter list. If BLOs found that voters enrolled were deceased or had shifted or had migrated, how did the ERO make a determination about those facts? The SIR instructions do not contain any requirement of submitting documents to testify to these developments. Merely making a decision to delete names on the basis of door-to-door visits would be deemed arbitrary in any court of law.

Venkatesh Nayak to The Quint

Second RTI: Minutes of ECI Meetings

Soon after the current Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took charge, the ECI initiated under his instructions thousands of meetings with political party representatives at the level of the CEOs, DEOs and EROs.

In April 2025, the ECI issued a press release about these meetings giving the number of meetings held, their purpose and expected outcomes. Within a span of 25 days by the end of March, CEOs are said to have held 40 meetings, DEOs held 800 and EROs held 3,879 apparently engaging with more than 28,000 political party representatives.

Nayak submitted an RTI application on 25 April, seeking information about the state and UT-wise dates of these 40 meetings, the agenda note prepared for each meeting, their duration, the list of political representatives who attended these meetings and a copy of the action taken reports (ATRs) of all these meetings.

RTI submittedby Nayak in April 2025.

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint)

The response?

Well, the reply in May 2025, was similar to the one received before.

"CPIO Ms. Shilpi Srivastava replied that the ECI does not have any of the information sought above. I was advised to approach the offices of the CEOs in the States and UTs directly. As usual, the CPIO refused to transfer the RTI application to them saying that they were all separate public authorities," said Nayak.

Pointing out a discrepancy in the RTI response, Nayak said that the ECI, in a press note, had publicly declared that the CEOs may send an action taken report about the meetings they conduct along with those held by the EROs and DEOs.

"If the CPIO claims that the ECI has no information about these reports, can that be believed? Even if all pending issues were resolved in these meetings, the CEOs would have sent the action taken reports. So the CPIO's reply cannot be trusted at all. Or is there a larger problem of the CEOs not complying with the ECI's directions?" he asked.

Through these two RTIs and drawing from his own experience in the last couple of years, Nayak stated that filing appeals against these kinds of replies is a futile exercise because the first appellate authority of the ECI invariably upholds them without batting an eyelid.

Moreover, the second appeal process is so tardy, he added, that there is no hope of getting a hearing in less than a year because of the severely under-recruited Central Information Commission (there are eight vacancies as on date). 

"The ECI and the electoral bureaucracy has to be accountable to the electorate for faculty voter lists. But in the absence of information about action taken in this regard, it is next to the impossible to hold them accountable. This is why despite the resistance, I had filed these RTIs," Nayak told The Quint.

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 (or whatever is left of it), the RTI activist concluded.