A petition filed before the Telangana High Court has challenged the alleged use of automated data matching to issue notices to electors in Telangana, arguing that election authorities cannot initiate proceedings solely through the ECINet/ERONET platform without verifying physical records and applying independent judgment.
The petition, filed by S.A. Masood, names the Election Commission of India, the Telangana Chief Electoral Officer and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation among the authorities concerned, according to a report by Deccan Chronicle. It alleges that electors were being identified and flagged over minor discrepancies through the platform, followed by proceedings without adequate verification by Electoral Registration Officers.
Masood has also challenged the lack of publicly available information about the platform’s methodology, parameters and functioning. The petition contends that electors should be told how automated matching is carried out and what information is used before action is initiated against them.
The challenge raises questions about how digital systems are being used in voter-list administration, particularly when an automated match may trigger a notice or other proceedings affecting an individual’s electoral record. The petitioner has argued that the authorities must examine the relevant physical and official records before taking action, rather than treating a data match as conclusive.
According to the petition, initiating proceedings solely on the basis of automated matching would be contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It further claims that such action would be illegal and unreasonable and would violate the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.
Masood has sought a declaration that the alleged action by the election authorities is unlawful. He has also asked the High Court to restrain the Election Commission, the Telangana Chief Electoral Officer and the GHMC from initiating or continuing proceedings against electors solely on the basis of ECINet/ERONET matching unless the procedure prescribed under law is followed.
The petition seeks directions requiring verification of the relevant records and application of mind by the competent Electoral Registration Officers before any action is taken against electors. The report does not state that the High Court has issued an interim order or ruled on the merits of the challenge. The next development will depend on the court’s consideration of the petition and any directions issued to the election authorities.
