New Delhi: The Election Commission of India has refused to disclose details of the software it used to identify discrepancies during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. The Commission says the information is a trade secret and intellectual property, and that it cannot be released under the Right to Information Act.

The report carrying the refusal is dated October 26, 2026. The Commission’s position leaves the core workings of a tool that touches every name on the revised voter list outside public view.

“This information relates to trade secrets and intellectual property, and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.” — Election Commission of India

What the Commission left unanswered

The Commission did not say whether artificial intelligence or machine learning is being used to detect differences in the voter list. That question goes to the heart of how the software reaches its conclusions, and it went unanswered.

Asked whether the software can identify errors on its own, the Commission declined to respond. It said the question sought clarity, but it did not offer that clarity in its reply.

Those gaps matter. A revision of voter rolls depends on whether the flags raised during the process are accurate, and whether the people affected can understand why a particular entry was flagged. Without answers on the method, neither the public nor outside observers can judge how the discrepancies were identified.

Congress raises the secrecy charge

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh turned the refusal into a political issue on Sunday. He accused the Election Commission of hiding key information about its ECINet software.

Referring to the same report, Ramesh argued that a lack of transparency, combined with the use of artificial intelligence, has damaged the credibility of the SIR process. His criticism frames the dispute around a simple question: can a voter roll revision be trusted when the tools behind it stay closed?

The Commission has not, in the reporting available, responded to Ramesh’s specific allegation about ECINet. The accusation now sits alongside the Commission’s own refusal, and the two together have pushed the software question into the open.

Why this lands at a sensitive moment

Election transparency is under intense public scrutiny, and the Commission’s refusal arrives in the middle of that debate. Voters, political parties and observers rely on voter lists being accurate and on the processes that maintain them being open to examination.

The argument over electronic voting integrity has a basic core. When the systems that help shape election processes are kept secret, the public has to take the outcome on trust. In this case, the Commission has asked for that trust without explaining whether artificial intelligence is involved at all.

The legal basis of the refusal

The Commission’s reply rests on two claims. The first is that the software is a business secret. The second is that the information is intellectual property. On that basis, the Commission argues the details fall outside what can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.

Those claims put the Commission in a difficult spot. It is refusing to explain a tool whose output affects voter lists, while also declining to say whether that tool uses artificial intelligence or can flag errors without human review. Each refusal raises the stakes of the next question.

The Commission has not offered a public explanation beyond the reply quoted above. That leaves critics and supporters working with the same limited facts: a refusal, a set of unanswered questions, and a political charge of concealment.

What comes next

The immediate question is whether the Commission will provide any further detail on how the SIR software works, or whether it will hold to its position that the information stays private. Either path will shape how the public views the revision.

For now, the facts are clear. The Commission has refused to disclose the software details. It has not confirmed whether artificial intelligence or machine learning is used. It has declined to say whether the software can spot errors on its own. And a senior Congress leader has accused it of hiding key information. Each of those points will likely drive the next phase of the debate over the integrity of India’s election process.