1.07 crore names removed in Karnataka’s draft SIR rolls

Why in the News

The Election Commission of India’s draft electoral rolls under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) show 1.07 crore names removed from Karnataka’s electoral rolls, shrinking the State’s registered electorate to 4.46 crore. Discrepancy notices have been issued to affected voters, and the deletions have been categorised under the ASDDO framework: Additional, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, and Objected entries. Opposition parties have flagged the ASDDO categorisation as opaque, arguing that voters cannot easily determine which specific ground led to their own name being struck off.

What is the Special Intensive Revision, and what has it found in Karnataka?

1. A door-to-door re-verification of the electoral roll: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is the Election Commission’s mechanism for a fresh, ground-level re-verification of every entry on a State’s electoral roll, distinct from the routine annual summary revision.
2. 1.07 crore names deleted from Karnataka’s rolls: The draft rolls published under the SIR remove 1.07 crore entries from Karnataka’s electoral list, a reduction large enough to shrink the State’s registered electorate to 4.46 crore.
3. Deletions grouped under five ASDDO categories: Every deleted entry is classified as Additional (a duplicate registration elsewhere), Shifted (moved residence), Duplicate (registered more than once), Dead (deceased), or Objected (formally objected to by another party), the ASDDO framework the Election Commission uses to justify each deletion.
4. Discrepancy notices issued to affected voters: Voters whose names were flagged for possible deletion have been sent discrepancy notices, intended to give them a chance to respond before the final roll is published.

Why is the ASDDO categorisation being called opaque?

1. No voter-level breakdown published against each category: Opposition parties argue that the aggregate 1.07 crore figure is not accompanied by a transparent, checkable breakdown showing how many entries fall under each of the five ASDDO categories, making it difficult to assess whether deletions are concentrated in a particular category prone to error.
2. Individual voters cannot easily verify their own category: A voter who finds their name removed has limited means to determine which of the five categories was applied to their specific entry, or to see the evidence behind that categorisation, before the final roll is locked in.
3. Scale of deletion invites scrutiny of the underlying process: A reduction of over a crore names is large enough, relative to Karnataka’s total electorate, that opposition parties are asking whether the field verification exercise behind the SIR was itself uniformly rigorous or prone to erroneous deletions in specific segments.

Conclusion

Karnataka’s SIR draft rolls have removed 1.07 crore names and issued discrepancy notices to affected voters, but the opacity around the ASDDO breakdown leaves the accuracy of that large a deletion unverifiable from outside the Election Commission’s own process. The final electoral roll, after voters respond to the discrepancy notices, will determine how many of the 1.07 crore deletions are contested and reversed before the list is locked.

Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

1. A ground-level, door-to-door re-verification of a State’s entire electoral roll conducted by the Election Commission of India under its powers over roll preparation under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
2. Distinct from the routine annual Summary Revision, which updates the existing roll rather than re-verifying every entry from scratch.
3. Uses Booth Level Officers to physically verify voter details house by house before publishing a draft roll for public objections.
4. Has drawn political controversy in multiple States over the scale of deletions and the transparency of the verification process behind them.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”