Government Choosing its Voters’: Karnataka Coalition Demands Halt to Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

Nov 01, 2025
By Joint Statement

To,

Mr. V Anbu Kumar
Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka

Dear Sir,

We, the people of Karnataka, write to you with grave concern about the implementation of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka. The Order issued by the Election Commission of India (No. 23/ERS/2025) dated $24^{th}$ June, 2025 notified that the ECI has decided to begin the SIR in the entire country. Through news reports, we are aware that the ECI is gearing up to launch the SIR in Karnataka¹. Our concerns are as follows:


1. Designed to disenfranchise the poor and marginalized people

Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which lays down the conditions for voter registration, says that anyone who is 18 years or older on the qualifying date and is ordinarily resident in a constituency is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll. It is for the authorities to prove that a person is not a citizen, not the other way around.

In SIR, the process outlined is that all existing voters will be given a pre-printed ‘Enumeration Form’, and will be required to furnish documents along with the signed and filled Form, to prove their citizenship. Until 2023, the onus was on the Election Commission to prove that the voter is not eligible to vote and if it is proven that the voter is ineligible, their name was to be be deleted. However, the new framework outlined for the SIR mandates that voters furnish proof of citizenship to establish that their names must be retained in electoral rolls. This reversal of the burden of proof renders the poor and marginalized people vulnerable to disenfranchisement in the following ways:

Firstly, according to the Booklet on Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Karnataka 2025 issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, the SIR will require existing voters to submit one of 11 documents to prove that they are citizens of the country. People who would like to register as new voters are also required to furnish additional forms with proof of citizenship. Shockingly, the Voter ID card issued by the ECI themselves, the MGNREGA card and the Aadhar card, some of the most widely held identity documents, are not accepted as proof of citizenship. The documents in the indicative list in the Booklet are:

  1. Any Identity card/Pension Payment Order issued to regular employee/pensioner of any Central Govt/State Govt./PSU.
  2. Any Identity Card/Certificate/Document issued in India by Government/local authorities/ Banks/Post Office/LIC/PSUs prior to 01.07.1987
  3. Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority.
  4. Passport.
  5. Matriculation/Educational certificate issued by recognized Boards/universities.
  6. Permanent Residence certificate issued by competent State authority.
  7. Forest Right Certificate.
  8. OBC/SC/ST or any caste certificate issued by the Competent authority.
  9. National Register of Citizens (wherever it exists).
  10. Family Register, prepared by State/Local authorities.
  11. Any land/house allotment certificate by Government.
  12. Aadhaar is to be accepted and utilized as a proof identity and not as a proof of Citizenship as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and instructions issued by the Hon’ble Commission vide letter No.23/2025-ERS/Vol.II dated 09.09.2025 in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is obvious that those who will not be able to furnish the above, are those that are landless, that are migrant workers, informal sector workers, the homeless and/or slum-residents. These groups largely belong to SCs, STs and Muslim communities.

Secondly, people born after 1987 are required to furnish proof of date and place of birth of themselves as well as their parents. This rule is not only arbitrary, but requiring voters to prove citizenship of parents is against the right to universal adult franchise enshrined in Article 326.

Thirdly, the SIR process is designed to take place within extremely tight deadlines. Therefore, students and migrant workers, who are less likely to meet these deadlines face the risk of disenfranchisement. While the Representation of People Act, 1950 considers temporary absence as still meeting the requirement of being ‘ordinarily resident’, the implementation of SIR will unfairly delete lakhs of voters who are unable to submit their documents on time.

Lastly, the SIR provides for an online process in which people can download the pre-filled Enumeration Form and upload the required documents, followed by verification by the BLO. This provision privileges only a small percentage of the population, those with digital literacy and access to computers, therefore, threatening voting rights of the majority of the population.

2. Threat to citizenship

In Clause 5(b) of the Booklet on Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Karnataka 2025 issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, it states, “Also, the ERO will refer cases of suspected foreign nationals to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. For these purposes, the AERO shall exercise ERO’s powers independently u/s 130(2) of the RPA, 1950.”

In the context in which Muslim workers and marginalized communities are constantly facing false accusations of being ‘illegal immigrants’, the unbridled powers given to Electoral Registration Officers is therefore subject to abuse, possibly leading to the targeting and harassment of people. Therefore, we argue that the exercise is essentially another name for the preparation of NRC (National Register of Citizens of India) whose constitutional validity is a matter pending before the Supreme Court.

3. SIR in Bihar an example of mass disenfranchisement

We saw the implementation of the SIR in Bihar, and the mass disenfranchisement it led to. A whopping 65 lakh voters were deleted from the electoral rolls. The ECI stated grounds such as death, migration, duplication and lack of enumeration to delete electors. The ECI disclosed the list of 65 lakh deletions only when compelled by the Supreme Court (Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India), but had failed to provide the reasons for 3.66 lakh deletions. The petitioners in ADR v ECI argued that the process of deletion lacked transparency, pointing out that the portal merely reflected a voter as “deleted” without any accompanying notice or. explanation that can enable a person to appeal. The ECI has till date, failed to disclose the number of deletions on the grounds of being alleged ‘foreign nationals’.

Reports have been regularly emerging from Bihar’s various constituencies that many voters who have been deleted based on the reason that they are dead, are in fact, alive raising serious questions about the SIR’s accuracy. Other reports also indicate that women were deleted in disproportionate numbers, and Muslims and Dalits were predominantly those among the deletions. Lastly, the SIR in Bihar resulted in a voter list replete with duplications, households with hundreds of voters and fraudulent addresses.

4. No reason provided by the ECI

Section 21(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 permits the ECI to direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part in a manner it may think it only for reasons to be recorded. However, the ECI’s order does not record any reason for the proposed exercise.

The real threat of SIR is not just farce and fraud in Bihar but quiet rewriting of the architecture of Indian citizenship. For 75 years, our Republic followed the logic of encompassment placing the onus on the state to ensure no eligible voter was left behind and the presumption of citizenship. SIR seeks to reverse all this.

It is also a matter of grave concern that the ECI is not cooperating with the state government in the inquiries into electoral fraud in Aland and Mahadevpura. The growing list of voter anomalies and allegations of electoral fraud in the country erodes public trust in the system and signals a glaring failure in the ECI’s responsibility to maintain free and fair elections.

It is deeply worrying to us, that despite many of these concerns being raised in the Supreme Court by petitioners, the ECI has been giving orders to expedite the SIR in other states. The SIR’s implementation in Bihar has proved that it is an arbitrary exercise, and has disenfranchised lakhs of citizens without due process, thereby disrupting free and fair elections. So, while the legal validity of such an SIR is presently challenged in the SC and is sub-judice, it would be necessary that the ECI hold off till the matter is decided by the Court.

Instead of voters choosing their government, the SIR is essentially a process in which the government chooses its voters. Universal adult franchise is the heart of every democracy and the right to vote is an inalienable right of every citizen in India. In a land fraught with social and economic inequalities, snatching away what little we have of our political rights is nothing short of a death knell to our democracy.

On behalf of the coalition, My Vote, My Right, we would like to express our strong opposition to the implementation of SIR in Karnataka. Instead of expediting the SIR in Karnataka, we demand that the CEO-Karnataka:

  • Issue a direction to halt all trainings and preparations for SIR in Karnataka.
  • Hold a consultative meeting with civil society organisations in Karnataka to address concerns of discrepancies and lack of transparency in the preparation of electoral rolls.

Sincerely,

(My Vote, My Right is a coalition of more than 23 civil society organisations, political parties, trade unions, women’s rights groups, concerned citizens, independent activists, writers and student groups of Karnataka, who have come together to stand in opposition to the Special Intensive Revision, proposed to be implemented in Karnataka.)