Karnataka Voter Revision: 'Suspected Foreign Nationals' Listed as 'Refused to Sign'

With the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls nearing a month since enumeration began, the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has not disclosed the number of 'suspected foreign nationals' identified in the State. This is despite the Election Commission of India (ECI) consistently stating that identifying such cases is a key objective of the SIR.

As of 6 p.m. on Monday, State-wide SIR data showed 24,305 voters under the 'others' category. However, Booth Level Officers (BLOs) told The Hindu that 'suspected foreign nationals'—voters whose citizenship or eligibility is considered doubtful—are being recorded under the 'refused to sign' option in the BLO application, which is reflected to the public as 'others'.

'The BLO application provides only five categories—which can be selected after three visits to an elector's residence—already enrolled (duplicate), death, permanently shifted, untraceable/absent and refused to sign,' the BLOs said. 'There is no 'others' category in the app. Those who are refusing to sign, besides those whose eligibility is suspected, are placed under same category – refused to sign,' a BLO explained.

Explaining what prompts them to flag a voter, a BLO said, 'A person may appear 'underage' despite having a voter ID, or may be unable to provide satisfactory information about the area they are living in. Based on such signs, we are collecting the enumeration form but categorise the voter as 'refused to sign'. The category also includes people who refuse to sign because they plan to obtain citizenship or already have citizenship elsewhere.'

CEO V. Anbu Kumar said that the 'others' category only represents electors who have refused to sign the enumeration form, irrespective of the reason, and maintained that no separate public category exists for 'suspected foreign nationals'. However, officials have not explained how voters with suspected eligibility would eventually be distinguished from those who have simply declined to sign the enumeration form. Nor have they clarified why such cases are not recorded under existing categories such as 'permanently shifted' or 'already enrolled (duplicate)', where applicable.

The commission’s notification on the SIR states that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) should begin scrutinising enumeration forms as they are received 'to identify cases with suspected eligibility', even 'before publication of the draft electoral roll'. The SIR booklet issued by the CEO clearly states that where an ERO or AERO doubts an elector’s eligibility, a suo motu inquiry should be initiated and a notice issued seeking an explanation. It also states that cases involving suspected foreign nationals should be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, after due inquiry.