Karnataka SIR: 91.3% Electors Mapped, Yet Over 1 Crore Deleted From Draft Rolls

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka has left a gap between official mapping figures and deletions that officials have not yet fully explained. While 91.30% of electors, including progeny, were mapped before enumeration, deletions after the draft rolls were published exceeded 19%, or more than 1.07 crore voters.

Before the draft rolls were published, Karnataka had 5.54 crore voters. Of these, 5.06 crore, including progeny, were mapped, leaving 48.21 lakh electors unmapped. Yet the number of deletions crossed 1.07 crore, meaning more voters were removed from the draft rolls than the number officially shown as unmapped. Officials gave different explanations for the discrepancy, but none matched the official figures, the report said.

Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and other officials in Bengaluru said voters who could not be mapped were issued notices under the category ‘no mapping’. However, only 23.45 lakh notices were generated under ‘no mapping’, even though the pre-enumeration mapping exercise had identified nearly twice that number — 48.21 lakh — as unmapped. With only about half of the unmapped voters receiving notices, questions have arisen over whether the pre-enumeration mapping data or the enumeration form details supplied by people were used to issue notices. Civil society groups have consistently asked that if enumeration form details were the basis, why was mapping carried out at all, and why were people who filled the forms correctly still flagged for notices.

Officials argued that names deleted under Absent, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead and Others (ASDDO) have no connection to mapping. According to them, mapping was only meant to collect details and ease the enumeration phase, while deletions resulted from cases where forms were not submitted back. However, among the ASDDO deletions, more than 15 lakh deletions marked as ‘absent’ occurred simply because a person was not present when the enumeration form was given, even though the elector was residing at the same place. So far, there is no explanation for why deletion happened if the mapping details were already present, since mapping was mostly the same as the enumeration process, where a person was mapped to self or progeny with the 2002 rolls.

BLOs further defended the exercise by saying that 91% only reflects the coverage of the mapping exercise, not its success. But again, official figures have not been given on how many electors were successfully mapped and how many could not be mapped.

The gap is stark at the district level. Kodagu consistently reported the highest mapping percentage, with 98.67% completed as of mid-June, leaving only 1.33% of the electorate outside the mapping exercise. Yet the district reported more than 13% deletion. Before deletions, 4.68 lakh electors were in the list, while 4.62 lakh electors, including progeny, were said to be mapped, leaving only 6,230 names outside mapping. Even if ASDDO is kept aside, as officials argue there is no connection, and only notices for ‘no mapping’ are considered, the number is more than 23,000, while overall notices in the district crossed 58,890.

Although official figures suggested the highest percentage of mapping in Kodagu, BLOs, as reported by The Hindu, had consistently flagged the area as one of the most difficult to map because of the mobility of its tribal population. Many workers move within the district depending on the plantation season. BLOs said that in villages such as Kedamullur in Virajpet taluk, not even a single elector could be mapped.

The trend is the same across districts, with no clarity on how initially a huge number of electors were able to map to the 2002 rolls but failed to do so in the enumeration forms. The SIR process involves house-to-house enumeration and publication of draft rolls, after which claims and objections are invited before final rolls are prepared. The unanswered questions around mapping, notices and deletions are likely to remain part of the public debate as the revision moves forward.