Karnataka: 3.83 lakh 'Others' voters face possible deletion without hearing

In Karnataka, over 3.83 lakh voters classified as "Others" in the electoral roll may be deleted without being given a hearing, according to Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines. This is unlike voters marked as "unmapped" or those flagged for "logical discrepancy," who are assured an opportunity to present their case before any action is taken.

The ECI guidelines permit the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) handling a case to either conduct a hearing or directly mark the voter as "Found OK" or "Found Not Eligible." The Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer's booklet on post-draft roll publication activities states: "For electors classified as Others, the ERO/AERO is permitted to mark elector as Found OK or Found Not Eligible directly or ERO/AERO can schedule the hearing also."

The guidelines do not specify the grounds on which an "Others" voter can be directly declared "Not Eligible," nor do they define the criteria that make a voter "eligible" in the first place. As of August 19, more than 3.83 lakh voters in the state were classified under this category.

Even when a hearing is conducted, the rules grant the officer wide discretion. The guidelines state that for an "Others" voter called for a hearing, the officer must verify documents. For a self case, an extract of the last Special Summary Revision (SIR) has to be uploaded, while for a progeny case, at least one proof of relationship is mandatory. These documents are then sent to the District Election Officer (DEO) for verification. If the DEO finds missing information or discrepancies, the case is sent back to the ERO/AERO.

At this stage, the ERO/AERO has two choices: upload additional documents or mark the voter "Found Not Eligible." Asking the voter for additional documents is not mandatory. The officer can simply reject the case and mark the voter as not eligible. Thus, even during a hearing, there is no clear requirement to give the voter another opportunity to correct missing documents before rejection. The decision is left entirely to the ERO/AERO.

The guidelines also include an option titled "Found Not Eligible/Documents Inadmissible/Not Appropriate for Notice Issued." If the officer selects this option, the hearing order has to be uploaded, and the voter is marked "Found Not Eligible." This makes the process heavily dependent on the discretion of the ERO/AERO, with unclear safeguards for the voter.

There is also no clear definition of who falls under the "Others" category, even after the enumeration phase has ended. The CEO's office has repeatedly said that the category consists "mostly" of voters who refused to sign the enumeration form. The number of voters classified as "Others" fell by 1.05 lakh between August 4 and August 17, when the ASDDO list was made public. No explanation has been given for what happened to these voters — whether they were wrongly classified, reclassified under another category, or agreed to sign the form within ten days. It is also unclear who was added to the category and why. The CEO's office has maintained that it cannot check the reasons for classification, saying that doing so could introduce bias against voters.

Meanwhile, while notices related to logical discrepancies will not change as the rolls have been frozen after the enumeration phase, the overall number of notices is likely to increase. The guidelines give the ERO/AERO "full powers" to issue notices under the "Others" category even in cases where a voter has no logical discrepancy or has provided their 2002 electoral roll details and is therefore "mapped."