After public pressure, Karnataka CEO publishes SIR notice list; hearing details absent
The Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has published the list of electors issued SIR (Special Identity Report) notices, following sustained public pressure. The list, covering 43.81 lakh people across the State, is now available on the official website at ceo.karnataka.gov.in/notices_issued.html, with district-wise files for download.
However, the published list does not specify the venue, date, or time of the scheduled hearings. With hearings already having begun across Karnataka on Thursday, many voters say the lack of prior information leaves them with little choice but to miss their hearings. The omission has added to the confusion surrounding an already opaque process, even as the public can now at least access the list.
Electors have flagged several practical hurdles. According to them, only the person who has been issued a notice can appear for the hearing; no one else can represent the voter. Further, a hearing can be rescheduled only once, and that too at the discretion of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).
Another issue raised relates to the role of Booth Level Officers (BLOs). Electors report that BLOs are not visiting homes to serve notices, but instead asking voters to collect the notices from polling stations. This is despite the fact that hearings are to be conducted by the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) or the ERO, not by BLOs.
The notices have been issued for two broad reasons: non-mapping of a voter's or their parent's details to the 2002 electoral rolls, and what officials call 'logical discrepancies' — such as an implausible age gap between an elector and their parents or grandparents, differences in the spelling of the father's name, or a mismatch in the voter's own name in cases of self-mapping. While these are the stated grounds, several people in Bengaluru have reported receiving notices even when they had correctly filled in all their details.
For instance, in Byatarayanapura, the Bengaluru Deputy Electoral Officer found that three people had been issued notices despite their mapping details being correct. Yet, even in such cases, the order required them to appear before an inquiry. This places the entire burden of compliance on the voter, even when the fault lies elsewhere.
The publication of the list is a significant step towards transparency, but the absence of critical information — hearing schedules and locations — continues to create difficulties for ordinary electors. As hearings proceed, clarity on these practical aspects will be essential to ensure that the process does not disproportionately affect those who have done nothing wrong.
