The Digital Gavel: Justice Bagchi Questions the Logic Behind Election Software

The intersection of technology and democracy is often a messy one. In a recent development that has caught the attention of voters and legal experts alike, Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi has raised serious concerns regarding the software being used by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Specifically, the focus is on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal. What started as an effort to clean up voter lists has turned into a massive administrative headache for millions, leading to questions about how much we should trust "logical" algorithms when they clash with the messy reality of human life.

​At the heart of the issue is a category the ECI calls "logical discrepancies." This sounds technical and perhaps even helpful, but Justice Bagchi’s observations suggest that the software might be a bit too rigid for its own good. By applying strictly defined rules to a diverse population, the system has ended up flagging millions of citizens for minor errors that most people would consider part of everyday life.

​

When Algorithms Meet Culture

​One of the most striking points raised by Justice Bagchi involves something as simple as a middle name. In many Bengali households, the name "Kumar" is frequently used as a middle name. However, the ECI’s software appears to treat the presence or absence of this middle name as a major red flag. If a person is registered as "Tapan Kumar Roy" in one record and "Tapan Roy" in another, the software flags it as a discrepancy.

​Justice Bagchi pointed out that this "restrictive" approach ignores natural differences in how names are recorded. It isn't just a matter of a few people being inconvenienced. When a system is this sensitive, it casts an incredibly wide net, dragging in honest citizens who have done nothing wrong. For a voter, receiving a legal notice questioning their identity simply because they dropped a middle name can be a frightening and confusing experience.

​The Problem with "Impossible" Ages

​Beyond names, the software also uses age gaps to hunt for anomalies. On paper, it makes sense: if a child is listed as being only five years younger than their parent, something is clearly wrong. But the ECI's software has been set with parameters that many argue are out of touch with ground realities. For example, the system flags cases where the age difference between a parent and child is less than 15 years.

​Justice Bagchi noted that while we strive to eliminate underage marriage, it is a historical and social reality in many parts of the country. By setting the software to flag these instances as "logical discrepancies," the ECI is essentially ignoring the actual life experiences of many older voters. Similarly, the software flags gaps between grandparents and grandchildren if they don't fit a specific mathematical window. The Justice’s point was simple: life doesn't always follow a perfect 20-year generation cycle, and a computer program shouldn't be the final judge of what constitutes a "natural" family.

​The Famous "Notice Sen" Incident

​Perhaps the most high-profile example of this software’s overreach is the mention of notices being sent to prominent figures, including Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen. When a system designed to find "discrepancies" starts questioning the status of world-renowned scholars and sitting Members of Parliament, it’s a clear sign that the "net" is being cast far too wide.

​The "Notice Sen" incident serves as a wake-up call. If someone with the stature of Amartya Sen is being flagged for a "logical discrepancy," imagine the plight of a rural farmer or a daily wage laborer who might not have the resources or the literacy to navigate a complex legal challenge. This isn't just about a glitch in the system; it’s about the potential for mass disenfranchisement.

​A Policy Challenge for Democracy

​The Supreme Court bench, which also includes Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice NV Anjaria, noted that around 1.4 crore electors in West Bengal alone have landed on the "logical discrepancy" list. That is a staggering number. Half of those are reportedly there due to minor mistakes that have no bearing on their eligibility to vote.

​Justice Bagchi’s reservations highlight a "policy challenge." If the Election Commission relies too heavily on AI-driven software that doesn't account for cultural naming conventions or social realities, it risks undermining the very democracy it is supposed to protect. The court has now pushed for more transparency, demanding that these lists be displayed at local panchayat buildings and block offices so people actually know they are being questioned.

​Moving Toward a More Human System

​The takeaway from these judicial observations is clear: technology should assist humans, not replace human judgment. While cleaning up electoral rolls is a noble and necessary task, it cannot be done at the cost of harassing the citizenry. A software tool that sees a missing middle name as a potential fraud is a tool that needs better calibration.

​The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for these revisions and insisted on a more "layman-friendly" approach. It’s a reminder that in the age of big data and AI, the "ground reality" of the people must always come first. We cannot allow algorithms to define who is and isn't a valid citizen based on a missing "Kumar" or a 14-year age gap from 1950.