The Election Commission (EC)’s right to information (RTI) replies show that it seems to accept its own inaction as a sufficient reason for failing to compile data on disabled voters in our democracy.Ten out of 11 basic right to information (RTI) queries on the political participation of disabled citizens received the following response:“The information sought by you is not available in compiled form and the compilation of such information will disproportionately divert the resources of the Commission. You may please refer to Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 in this regard.”Section 7(9) of the RTI Act allows for the denial of some information sought on the grounds that providing it “would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority” or “would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question”.As per the EC’s website, the poll body “has a separate Secretariat at New Delhi, consisting of about 550 officials, in a hierarchical set up”, and a total budget of Rs 304.98 crore for 2025-2026. When it is armed with such resources, one finds it difficult to fathom how compiling information which directly impacts the rights of a disadvantaged and vulnerable population would “disproportionately divert resources of the Commission”.The hypocrisy and lack of will to compile data on disabled citizens along with violating the letter and spirit of the RTI Act of 2005 is demonstrated when one specifically looks at the RTI queries: Please provide the number of registered voters with disabilities (PwDs) for each Lok Sabha election and assembly election from 2014 to 2024, disaggregated by: a. state/Union territory, gender, type of disability. Please provide the voter turnout percentage of PwDs in the last two Lok Sabha elections and recent assembly elections state-wise. Please provide the total number and percentage of polling booths marked as PwD-friendly during the last two general elections. Total number of accessibility audits conducted to ensure the accessibility of polling booths. Total number of persons with disabilities recorded at polling booths who cast their vote by availing accessible voting services. Total number of persons with disabilities who used the postal ballot facility for persons with disabilities. Total number and details of initiatives or campaigns that the EC has undertaken to increase awareness and voter participation among persons with disabilities. Total budget and expenditure allocated towards initiatives or campaigns that the EC has undertaken to increase awareness and voter participation among persons with disabilities. Total number of candidates with disabilities who contested in Lok Sabha or state assembly elections from 2014 to 2024. Total number of elected representatives with disabilities, MPs and MLAs, during the same period.How hard can it be for the EC to compile information on its own budgets, initiatives, polling booths and policies that it must seek shelter under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act? Is there no paper trail or public document within the organisation that could showcase a modicum of authenticity?This refusal to compile even basic statistics on persons with disabilities isn’t just bureaucratic inertia, it’s symptomatic of a deeper systemic erasure.As per the 2011 census, there are 2.68 crore people with disabilities in India, amounting to 2.21% of the total population. While we’re led to believe this data is credible, it’s woefully inadequate.The 2011 World Health Organisation World Report on Disability estimates that about 15% of the global population lives with some form of disability, a figure echoed by many disability rights activists and organisations in India. Applying this to India’s 2011 population yields an estimated 18.15 crore persons with disabilities, far higher than official counts, with the majority invisible to the system and excluded from services.Moreover, this data is now 14 years old, and the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the crisis, with studies showing rises in long-term disabilities from health complications, pushing the true numbers even higher.India, as an autocratic-majoritarian state, has a pattern of hiding or delaying such data, exemplified by the postponed 2021 census, making it easier to sideline issues that don’t serve the corporate elite. Staying data-poor allows the masses to normalise daily struggles while the 1% profits, ensuring persons with disabilities remain perpetually overlooked.For RTI query 1 alone, a basic tally of registered disabled voters across elections, broken down by state/Union territory, gender and disability type, a simple Google search unearths that the EC’s own Form 6 for new voter registrations allows applicants to disclose their disability type (from visual and locomotor to intellectual and multiple).Therefore, when the public information officer (PIO) shrugs that ‘no such information exists in compiled form’, it’s not mere oversight, it’s outright evasion. Granular constituency-level details might demand some effort, but collating nationwide aggregates from their own electoral rolls?Venkatesh Nayak, an RTI activist and director at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, confirmed my hypothesis, clarifying that “Section 7(9) is often misused by PIOs to deny basic information which they ought to have collected. According to Section 7(1) an RTI application may be rejected only for reasons specified in Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. Section 7(9) is therefore not a valid ground for denying information. If information cannot be provided in the form sought, the PIO must provide it in some other mutually acceptable form.”He further went on to state:“It is ridiculous for the EC’s PIO to say that the information requested is not available with them. Special instructions are issued before every election to make the polling stations PwD-friendly. Election observer reports contain the information about on-site arrangements made. Further, the returning officer’s report in Annexure 44 format provided in the Handbook for ROs, 2023 edition, has an entry about the number of PwD voters who actually cast their vote during the elections. The EC has made the submission of this report compulsory after the declaration of the results. All that the PIO had to do is to furnish a copy of these documents to the RTI applicant after collecting additional fees. It is pathetic for the PIO to claim the protection of Section 7(9) to deny access to such basic information.”This blatant misuse of Section 7(9) flies in the face of Central Information Commission (CIC) precedents that strictly limit its application.In a landmark 2006 ruling (Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC, dated February 25), the CIC held that “Section 7(9) of the Act does not authorise a public authority to deny information. It simply allows the authority to provide the information in a form easy to access.”Echoing this, a 2008 decision (Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00349, dated March 26) clarified to the respondents that “Section 7(9) does not authorise refusal of information but only disclosure in a form other than that asked for, for reasons given in that Section.”These judgments make it clear: the EC’s refusal isn’t a resource issue, it’s a deliberate evasion of accountability. The response took as long as three months to be compiled, whereas as per the RTI Act a public authority must respond within the prescribed limit of a month!Through this advocacy I am not even testing the ground realities of the political participation of persons with disabilities, which is a horror story in itself.However, the lackadaisical response confirms that in the minds of the political class, persons with disabilities are lesser humans who don’t even deserve charity and are rather disfigured objects that can be exploited to garner sympathy amongst larger vote banks through various schemes and programs; they are just a photo op.If the state does not take responsibility for compiling information on disabled citizens, they will remain invisible to the political class. Without data, how will policymakers develop schemes? How will bureaucrats and public functionaries implement welfare programs? All these questions, one worries, may have an easy solution for opportunistic politicians: keep budgets stagnant and cut them when they are underutilised. Then, those who do not receive the welfare they deserve become easy pickings for a sad but feel-good picture when you need sympathy points, thereby alleviating the public image of the state and misleading ordinary citizens. Repeat this cycle enough times and the people will believe you are doing your bit and vote for you.Shameer Rishad is the convenor of the Javed Abidi Foundation (JAF). He can be reached on X and Instagram @rishadshameer.