The Telangana High Court has asked the Election Commission of India why a petitioner was excluded from the electoral roll without notice and what decision followed the response of another, in a challenge to the AI-assisted Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain why one petitioner was excluded from the electoral roll without any notice, and what action was taken after another petitioner responded to a notice, in a writ petition challenging the use of AI-based automation in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls [S.Q. Masood & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.].
A Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda heard the matter and listed it for further hearing on October 13, 2026. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the contentions below are those of the respective parties.
The petitioners’ contentions
Senior Advocate L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the SIR process uses AI-based automation without any legal authority. He argued that voters were excluded from the rolls without proper notice or verification of physical records, and that the Electoral Registration Officers did not apply due diligence.
He further submitted that the methodology of the ECINet platform is not transparent or publicly disclosed, that the process is “unscientific” and lacks human intervention in decision-making, and that voters who respond to notices receive no information on the outcome. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner received no notice before exclusion.
Relying on a recent observation of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, he submitted that any process taking away voting rights is unjustifiable, and contended that disenfranchisement violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
The ECI’s response
Counsel for the ECI submitted that a notice had been issued to the second petitioner citing a mismatch in the father’s name between the current and previous electoral rolls, with the hearing fixed for September 15. As regards the first petitioner, it was submitted that he could file Form 6 seeking inclusion, since he had admitted to a name mismatch.
The Telangana High Court’s observations and queries on the SIR plea
During the hearing, Justice Koshy remarked that he too had received a similar notice and had responded to it:
“I believe such a notice was also issued to me…personally. I had responded.”
The Bench asked why the first petitioner had been excluded without any notice, and what action had been taken after the second petitioner submitted his response on September 15. It observed:
“If he has satisfied and explained on the mismatch, you must have taken a decision on that.”
On the use of AI, the Bench orally observed that the “element of bias would not be there”, to which Ravichander countered that the process has no recognition in law. No finding was recorded on either contention.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks ECI Data On SIR Appeal Disposals In West Bengal
Case Title: S.Q. Masood & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. | WP No. 32975/2026
Bench: Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026 | Next Hearing: October 13, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate L Ravichander