Karnataka SIR: Civil Society Report Alleges 1.08 Crore Voter Deletions, Seeks Independent Inquiry

An investigation report released by the Anti-SIR Alliance and the Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee has flagged what it describes as large-scale deletions and discrepancies in Karnataka’s electoral rolls following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists. The organisations have called for an independent assessment to establish the extent of any wrongful exclusion from the rolls.

The report draws on electoral-roll data, a survey of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and house-to-house verification across 100 polling booths in 25 districts. The organisations acknowledge that this is only a small proportion of the State’s polling booths, and have themselves urged wider verification of their findings.

According to the report, Karnataka’s electorate fell from 5,52,49,719 voters in 2025 to 4,44,53,380 in the draft roll — a reduction of about 19.5%, or roughly 1.08 crore voters.

The report records 65,45,679 voters classified as “Shifted”, 16,39,864 as “Dead”, 15,17,042 as “Absent”, 7,09,870 as “Duplicate” and 3,83,884 under “Others”. These categories broadly denote voters recorded as having moved from a registered address, as deceased, as not found at the given address, or as duplicate entries.

The organisations say the “Shifted” category warrants particular scrutiny. Their argument is that people who move for employment or change rented accommodation should be given an opportunity to transfer their registration rather than being removed from the rolls. They also point to the difficulties faced by migrant workers, who may not be at home when BLOs conduct verification.

The Citizens’ Vote Protection Committee says its house-to-house verification found instances where voters living at their registered addresses had been marked as “Shifted” or “Absent”, and claims some living voters were recorded under the “Dead” category. It also reports that some eligible voters did not receive enumeration forms, and that several were unaware their names had been removed from the draft roll.

The report separately highlights Bengaluru, where it says the electorate fell from 1,11,16,111 to 48,48,574 in the draft roll. It questions the scale of this reduction in a city that has seen substantial population growth and inward migration, and seeks a detailed official explanation.

Deletions are said to be particularly high in some backward districts and constituencies with sizable SC, ST and Muslim populations. The report notes that women are disproportionately represented in the “Shifted” category, partly because of changes in residence after marriage, and raises concerns about the impact on nomadic communities, Adivasis, Dalits, migrant workers, Muslims and residents of informal settlements.

The report also turns to the burden on BLOs, many of whom are teachers and Anganwadi workers. It says 23% of the BLOs surveyed received no training, while 38% of those trained received less than a day’s training, and that more than 80% reported being unable to cope with the workload. It refers to the deaths of five BLOs, which it attributes to work pressure and mental distress. The circumstances and causes of those deaths would require independent verification.

On notices, the report states that 43 lakh voters received them — 23 lakh over alleged non-mapping with the 2002 electoral roll and another 20 lakh under the “Logical Discrepancy” category. It records 7,70,988 Form 6 applications submitted by September 24, covering both restoration requests and new voters.

Actor and social activist Prakash Raj, speaking at the release of the report, demanded that the SIR in Karnataka be scrapped altogether.

The SIR is an exercise of the Election Commission of India, and the accuracy of electoral rolls is essential to the integrity of elections. At the same time, removing eligible voters from the rolls is a serious matter, and established procedure provides for notice, an opportunity to be heard and restoration through Form 6. The figures and individual cases cited in this report are the organisations’ own findings and claims, and have not been independently verified. The Election Commission’s response to these specific findings was not part of the material available at the time of publication.