Karnataka Chief Minister and Civil Society Groups Challenge Voter Roll Revisions

Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has urged the Election Commission of India to extend the claims and objections period following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. According to the draft rolls issued on August 24, approximately 1.08 crore of the state's 5.54 crore voters were flagged under the Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, and Others (ASDDO) category, including 46.88 lakh in Bengaluru. Additionally, around 43.8 lakh voters are expected to receive notices regarding logical discrepancies or a lack of links to 2002 electoral roll data.

Chief Minister Shivakumar requested a longer window for verification, arguing that the proposed 45 day period is too compressed for working people, migrants, and the elderly to provide necessary documentation. He suggested that a minimum of three to four weeks should be given to each elector to respond. He also requested an increase in the number of Additional Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers to manage the workload. To further ensure accuracy, he urged the convening of Ward Committee meetings in urban areas and Gram Sabhas in rural areas to read out the draft rolls.

Simultaneously, actor and filmmaker Prakash Raj announced a protest march in Bengaluru on September 1 as part of the Election Commission Chalo campaign. Raj and various civil society organizations have raised concerns over alleged flaws in the SIR process and indicated plans to move the courts to seek a stay on the exercise. Some activists claim that Booth Level Officers, under extreme pressure, may have incorrectly categorized genuine voters who shifted residences.

Responses to the revision vary across political lines. Center right sources highlight the perspective of the State BJP, which maintains that names were removed for genuine reasons and that some voters failed to return forms. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar defended the SIR process, stating it requires guts and is conducted transparently under the audit of political parties. Center left sources emphasize the risk of disenfranchisement due to voter mobility and the need for a more inclusive verification process. Center sources focus on the administrative requests for extensions and the specific scale of the flagged voter numbers.