New Delhi: The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Election Commission of India (ECI), while responding to a first appeal concerning documents related to the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR), stated that the Commission had not taken any formal decision to carry out such an exercise.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj had filed an RTI request on July 28 seeking details of the SIR process, which had been underway in Bihar since June 24. She had specifically asked for copies of all files — including notes, correspondence and related records — vide which the decision to conduct the SIR was approved.
Instead of providing these documents, the ECI only shared its June circular announcing the SIR and added that no further information was available with the Commission.
When Bhardwaj filed a first appeal challenging this adequate response, T.C. Kom, Principal Secretary and FAA of the ECI replied: “I have examined the original application and reply of the CPIO. As the reply is quite inadequate, CPIO was asked to provide comments regarding availability of reference number of all files in which the decision to initiate a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across the country in 2025 etc but CPIO has not provided as the requisite information is not available with him in any material form. In this connection, the appellant is informed that the Commission has so far not taken any decision on initiating a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) across the country in 2025 and hence no information to be provided in this regard. But CPIO has provided instruction of the Commission vide letter 24.06.2025 which is available with him. The appellant is further informed that RTI Act mandated to disclose information which is available with public authority in material form only. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.” (emphasis supplied), the Wire reported.
The FAA’s reply created confusion, as it appeared to contradict the Election Commission’s own June circular that had publicly announced the SIR process. In her RTI request, Bharadwaj had additionally asked for the order related to the previous Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls conducted in Bihar in 2003, along with the guidelines under which that revision had been carried out. She had also requested the list of documents that citizens were asked to produce during the exercise.
However, in its response dated August 27, 2025, the ECI only shared a copy of a guideline dated 24.6.2025 — a document that was already publicly available on the Commission’s website — and provided no further records.
When Bharadwaj appealed this inadequate response, T.C. Kom stated that the CPIO was not obligated to supply information that is over 20 years old. Kom also argued that under the RTI Act, a public authority is required to disclose only the information which is available with the public authority in material form only while disposing of the request.
“I have examined the original application and reply of the CPIO. As the reply is quite inadequate, CPIO was asked to provide comments regarding availability of copies of the complete file related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise conducted for Bihar in 2003, including proposal, approval, and final report. certified copies of all file notings and internal correspondence within the Election Commission of India regarding the decision to conduct the SIR in Bihar. But CPIO couldn’t provide the requisite information as it is not available with him in material form. In this connection, the appellant is informed that the information sought is more than 20 years old and the CPIO cannot be insisted to provide the information as specified u/s 8(3) of RTI Act, 2005 . But CPIO has provided instruction of the Commission vide letter 24.06.2025 which is available with him The appellant is further informed that RTI Act mandated to disclose information which is available with public authority in material form only. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
Bharadwaj pointed out that obtaining the 2003 orders would have helped clarify whether the Election Commission had, at that time, required any documents to verify voters’ citizenship. She also challenged Kom’s assertion that information older than 20 years could not be requested under the RTI Act.
In her statement, she argued that the FAA citing Section 8(3) was misplaced, and it was completely contrary to the RTI Act as this section, in fact, states that most of the exemptions listed under the Act will cease to apply after 20 years. The RTI Act does not, in any way, exempt disclosure of information which is more than 20 years old, she said.