Outsourcing core electoral IT systems to private vendors improves efficiency but raises accountability concerns. Examine in the context of electoral roll management in India.

The electoral roll is how citizens exercise adult suffrage (Article 326), and the ECI controls it under Article 324. The roll's IT system has moved from the first ERONet, run by C-DAC under MeitY, to ERONet 2.0, built with TCS [1]. In October 2026 the Opposition alleged that the online Form 6 was "illegally" changed on EC orders to TCS [1]. This allegation tests whether the efficiency gained has cost accountability.

Efficiency gains

• Scale and uniformity: ERONet handles Forms 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A and 001 in 14 languages and 11 scripts, on shared infrastructure for 29 States and 7 UTs [4].
• Real-time oversight: ERONet 2.0 has a centralised "single source of truth" database and a daily executive dashboard [1].
• Field digitisation: the BLO mobile app speeds up house-to-house verification [1].
• Faster reform: technology let 17-year-olds apply in advance for four qualifying dates a year [6].

Accountability concerns

• Bypassing rule-making: Form 6 is prescribed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Centre framed these under Section 28, RPA 1950 [2]. Past changes were made through notified amendment rules [3]. An online edit made without such a notification has no clear legal basis.
• Unclear chain of command: the question "who ordered TCS?" [1] shows that instructions given to vendors are not on record.
• Software overriding law: Aadhaar is voluntary, and not giving it cannot be a reason to reject an application [5]. A field that looks mandatory can still make it compulsory in practice.
• Concentrated risk: with one national database, a single configuration error reaches every state.
• Exclusion of first-time voters: Form 6 is the only route onto the roll for a new voter [2]. Any added difficulty hits young people and migrants hardest.
• Loss of trust: charges of "capture", backed by a former CEC's remarks [1], damage the EC's credibility whatever the facts turn out to be.

Way forward

• Publish a change log for every online form, linking each change to its notification.
• Issue written, signed EC instructions to vendors and keep independent audit trails.
• Release Form 6 application and rejection data by age group and state.
• Add data-custody clauses to vendor contracts, in line with the DPDP Act, 2023.

Private technology has made roll management faster and more inclusive, but the law, not the software, must define a statutory form. Strict change control, transparency and audits can keep these gains while protecting the credibility of free and fair elections, which are part of the Basic Structure, and SDG 16.7's goal of inclusive decision-making.