Supreme Court Rules EC Can Protect Voter List Data, Rejects States’ Plea Against SIR

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concerns about the potential privacy risks associated with making voter lists machine-readable. The court highlighted that such access could allow third-party entities to mine the data, potentially compromising individual privacy and collective data protection for Indian citizens. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the two-judge bench, suggested that one way to mitigate the privacy risk could be to provide individual voters with password-protected access to their own information, allowing them to view only their personal data rather than the entire voter list.

The bench heard arguments in petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in various states. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), one of the petitioners, argued that the Election Commission (EC) should provide the 2003 voters’ list in a machine-readable format. Bhushan contended that making the list machine-readable would not lead to manipulation of the data. He further stated that individuals or organizations with significant computing resources could convert the lists themselves, questioning why the EC would resist this. Justice Bagchi countered that while it is possible to access the data, it remains a valuable asset held in trust by the EC and therefore requires privacy safeguards. He likened it to locking a house, acknowledging that locks can be broken, but asserting that the house should still be secured.

To balance accessibility and privacy, Justice Bagchi suggested that voters could be given password-protected access to their personal data. This approach would allow them to verify their details on the EC’s encrypted database and respond to EC queries during the SIR process, without exposing the entire list. The bench also endorsed Bhushan’s recommendation that the EC use deduplication software to remove duplicate entries from the electoral rolls, with Justice Surya Kant agreeing that this would be a practical step without creating any issues.

The petitions also raised the question of whether the EC could determine voters’ citizenship through the SIR process. Bhushan argued that the EC should not be allowed to make such determinations, while Justice Kant noted that the issue would ultimately be addressed in the final hearing, depending on whether the EC has the legal authority to do so.

The Supreme Court issued notices on petitions challenging the SIR process in West Bengal, Puducherry, and Tamil Nadu, scheduling the next hearing for November 26. At the request of the EC, the court also instructed the respective High Courts to keep in abeyance petitions filed before them regarding the SIR process, so that the matter could be considered by the apex court first.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s focus was on balancing transparency in the electoral roll process with the need to protect sensitive voter data. The court emphasized that while machine-readable formats are not inherently problematic, safeguards—such as password-protected access and deduplication measures—are necessary to protect individual privacy and prevent misuse. The upcoming hearings will determine how the EC implements these recommendations, as well as clarify the limits of its authority regarding voter data and citizenship verification during SIR.