Election Commission Director General (IT) Seema Khanna has come under scrutiny after two Election Commissioners raised questions over whether electoral-roll software controlled by her division was restricting the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi repeatedly flagged concerns over centralised control of the voter database, according to correspondence reported this week. The dispute centres on ERONet and its successor ECINet, which manages electoral-roll functions and other election-related applications.
Khanna, who joined the Commission on deputation from the National Informatics Centre in 2025, heads its technology operations. The Commission’s official directory identifies her as Director General (IT).
Under Section 13B of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Electoral Registration Officers are appointed for constituencies and have statutory responsibility for electoral rolls. The controversy concerns whether software permissions effectively constrained their ability to perform functions assigned under law.
Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar wrote to Khanna on November 4, 2025, following directions from Sandhu, stating that statutory functions of EROs, District Election Officers and Chief Electoral Officers should be exercised by those officials and that IT systems must comply with the law. Another communication on January 2 asked that software should not restrict an ERO’s discretion.
ECINet was launched on January 22, integrating more than 40 election-related applications and portals. The platform was presented as an effort to streamline services and strengthen transparency.
The dispute gained urgency after an episode in Goa, where 97 additions approved by EROs reportedly could not be reflected in the electoral roll because the necessary database facility was unavailable. Goa election authorities sent repeated communications seeking restoration of the required functionality.
Opposition parties have seized on the controversy to allege improper backend control of voter databases. Those claims have not been established as fact, while the underlying institutional question remains whether technological controls can limit powers vested by statute in electoral officers.
