Maharashtra poll chief seeks more discretion for local election officers in ECINet 

Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer S Chockalingam has sought changes to the Election Commission’s ECINet software to give Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) greater discretion while processing notices issued during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. 

Chockalingam wrote to senior Election Commission officials on September 24 seeking four changes to the software. His requests focus on situations where election law gives EROs discretion to assess individual cases, but the digital system does not currently provide an option to exercise that discretion. 

The issue has assumed significance as Maharashtra works through the notice phase of its large-scale voter roll revision. The draft electoral roll published on August 31 contained 7.72 crore electors, compared with 9.79 crore on the rolls before the exercise. The Election Commission has said that names not appearing in the draft roll are not necessarily final deletions and that the revision process includes opportunities for claims, objections, and inclusion. 

Also read: Election Commissioner Objections Trigger CEC Removal Demand 

Four changes sought 

One of Chockalingam’s proposals concerns personal hearings. Under the existing rules, an ERO has discretion to require an elector to appear personally. The Maharashtra CEO sought an additional “Exempted from Hearing” option on ECINet for cases where satisfactory documents have already been submitted. The proposal specifically cited senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups who could otherwise face unnecessary inconvenience. 

The second proposal relates to documentation. Notices list 13 documents that voters can submit, but Chockalingam pointed out that the list is indicative rather than exhaustive. He sought an “Other/Other Equivalent Document” option, citing voters from communities such as tribal, homeless, and sex-worker populations who may not possess documents from the prescribed list. 

The third request concerns who can dispose of certain “logical discrepancy” cases. Chockalingam argued that where an ERO is satisfied with the evidence, the officer should be able to decide the matter rather than automatically sending supporting documents to the District Election Officer for verification. 

The fourth proposal concerns ECINet’s requirement to upload an “Extract of Last SIR” in every discrepancy case. The Maharashtra CEO said this should be optional because the discrepancy has already been identified using the previous SIR electoral roll. He also sought written FAQs to address field officers’ queries on notices, document submission, hearings, and disposal procedures. 

ECI responds 

The Election Commission has already acted on one of the key requests. Following a September 26 meeting, it allowed EROs to exempt electors flagged for logical discrepancies from personal hearings where appropriate. The Commission also said that further flexibility required by field officers would be made operational. 

The ECI subsequently changed the notice process so that Booth Level Officers can visit affected voters, collect documents at their homes, and upload them on ECINet for consideration by the ERO, reducing the need for routine personal hearings. 

The developments highlight a broader question about the role of technology in electoral administration. ECINet is intended to standardise and digitise electoral processes, while EROs remain the statutory authorities responsible for preparing and revising electoral rolls. The current debate centres on ensuring that digital workflows support those legal responsibilities without unnecessarily narrowing the discretion available to officers handling individual cases.