On August 24, the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) published the draft electoral rolls. Out of the 5.54 crore electors as on May 16, 2026, only 4.46 crore were able to make it to the draft list. The deletion of 1.08 crore voters – 19.48% is one of the highest deletion rates in the country. Apart from this, 20 lakh electors have been identified as not mapped and another 24 lakh as having logical discrepancies.As widely reported, Bengaluru contributes to the major chunk of deletions. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike or BBMP South (10.58 lakh or 49.33%), BBMP North (10.52 lakh or 45.12%) and BBMP Central (8.60 lakh or 45.54%) together saw 29.7 lakh voters in the ASDDO (Absent, Permanently Shifted, Dead, Duplicate or others) category, almost 30% of the overall deleted.Even though the overall average deletion rate of the state is 19.48% which is mainly due to Bengaluru, the non-Bengaluru state average is around 13.47% which also places the state in the more than average deletion state in the country. A thorough study of the pattern of deletion with respect to backwardness of regions, districts having more than the state average SC-ST populations and also of the districts and talukas which have more than average Muslim population provides clear testimony of how the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is not directed towards elimination of ineligible or illegal foreign migrants but Indian masses who are from poor, marginalised and vulnerable sections. That Election Commission of India (ECI)’s SIR is mainly an instrument to make eligible voters ineligible could be clearly established from the attitude of the ECI itself and its state CEOs including the Karnataka CEO, consistently refusing to learn from the previous phases of SIR or showing any improvement in the subsequent ones or showing any intent towards trying to make the process people-friendly.Also read: The SIR’s Safeguards Are Clearly Not Enough for an Exercise of This ScaleRather the ECI has shown enormous enthusiasm in learning from the earlier two phases to make the third phase much more exclusionary and insurmountable for the electors. Thus, while there were no filters like logical discrepancy during the Bihar SIR, it was introduced first in West Bengal and only four categories of logical discrepancies were checked for. But after the second phase, the ECI did not develop any SOP for identifying and scrutinising the anomalies in the third phase. Instead, nine categories of logical discrepancies have been listed in Karnataka and in Telangana it is reported to be 11. Apart from this, another glaring lacuna and a refusal to learn from the first two phases was the ECI’s unwillingness to conduct an awareness programme on the SIR among ignorant and marginalised voters before undertaking the exercise.The inadequate and impossible time-frame allotted for each phase of SIR even in the states where elections are two years away was another proof that SIR is not about “purification” of the voter list.In Karnataka, the enumeration form became a stage for confusion especially due to contradictory instructions given in filling progeny mapping details.The process created a lot more questions since the CEO declared that 91.56% of mapping in the state was over even before the stage of distribution of enumeration forms. But the enumeration form itself was basically seeking mapping details again. The confusion was so widespread that the CEO had to ask the electors to return the forms without progeny details. Apart from exclusionary categories like ASDD as seen in the first two phases, the states which underwent SIR in the third phase have one more category called “Others”, which is completely undefined. While the ASDD categories suggest the electors could not be given enumeration forms since they were either absent, shifted, dead or already registered (duplicate), it is unclear which individuals fall in the “Others” bracket.The only explanation given by the Karnataka CEO is that Others are those who refused to receive forms which in real terms does not make any sense given the mandate of ECI and the purpose of the SIR. In Karnataka, over 3 lakh are categorised as “Others”, the highest in the country. In the post-draft claims and objections phase, the Others would be served notice but the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have been given the power to decide whether they should be heard or listed as Ineligible “directly”. Notably, how the principle of natural justice does not apply to “Others” is neither questioned nor answered. That apart, the arbitrariness exhibited by the ECI in classifying the excluded voters into “Absent” and “Shifted” categories, which constitute approximately more than 75% of exclusion, The Hindu mentioned in its analysis.Also read: ‘SIR is Legal But is it Fair?’ Asks Former Election Commissioner Ashok LavasaHow a BLO categorises a particular person as “Absent” or “Shifted” still remains a puzzle. In fact, the pre-SIR rules had mandated the ERO to serve notice to the potentially “Shifted” elector and decide upon the removal or exclusion only after “hearing” the elector. The SIR process “liberated” the commission from all such obligations and reduced the checks and balances to just a random Mahajar (official inspection) with people around and declared an elector as “Shifted” without even bringing it to the notice of the elector. Thus, 60% of the ASDDO exclusions in Karnataka and also in almost all the states belong to this category and hardly 10-15% of them are able to get back to the rolls in the final list. It is for a pure and simple reason that the most of the electors listed in this category are migrant workers, city dwellers who often change their rented house due to several extraneous factors and never actually know their status in the SIR. Bengaluru has seen a significant proportion of internal migration for more than three decades now. The migration is basically adult migration which is not generally captured in terms of the general population growth in the state. Hence, the electors in cities like Bengaluru will be far above the general electoral population because of the adult population growth.Additionally, in states like Karnataka where fertility rate has significantly dropped in the last two decades, population reaching the adult range remains unchanged. Hence, the 46% deletion of electorate in Bengaluru and ASDDO deletion numbers cannot be explained and justified by the mismatch between the adult population growth rate and elector population growth rate. To justify the ASDDO exclusion on that basis is not only unnatural but also criminal.Structured exclusionA comparative analysis of the micro-level exclusion details provided by the CEO of Karnataka and analysing it with different parameters regarding possible impact on SC-ST, backward region and Muslim-dominated constituencies and studying the pattern of exclusion provides a clear picture of the impact and intention of SIR in Karnataka. A report of Karnataka regional imbalances redressal committee, headed by Govinda Rao, has mapped talukas in the state on the basis of backwardness of talukas as most backward, more backward, backward and developed. The census report of 2011 provides population breakdown religion-wise at sub-district level, and Election Commission provides the district and constituency profile of electors gender-wise and in terms of the SC-ST population. An AI-assisted analysis of ASDDO details based on these data and possible profile of the excluded in Karnataka gives a grim picture about the electoral democracy in particular and democracy in general.More the backwardness, more the ASDDO deletionsThe state average of ASDDO deletion is 19.48%. But the average in Bengaluru itself is 46% of which “Shifted” accounts for more than 60%. Thus the “Shifted” category needs adequate reasoning and justifications for which the ECI has nothing to offer. Among the non-Bengaluru constituencies, the ASDDO average is 13.47%.The Govinda Rao committee identifies most of the districts like Bidar, Yadgir, Gulbarga, Raichur, Ballari of Kalyana Karnataka region as the most backward. Gulbarga has more than the state average ASDDO of 19.48% and rest of the Kalyana Karnataka districts have more than non-Bengaluru average of 13.47%.Among these backward districts from where outward migration happens maximum to cities like Bengaluru, “Permanently Shifted” clause is listed as the reason for deletion of 40-75% of electors. But these migrants are again categorised as either “Absent” or “Permanently Shifted” even in Bengaluru. This defies logic since migrant labourers should be accounted either in their hometowns and villages or in the cities where they migrated to. If they are “Absent” or “Shifted” in both the places which can be deduced by the high rate of “Shifted” and ASDDO in both the places, the only inference that could be drawn is induced disenfranchisement. Karnataka: Least developed district as per Govind Rao Committee Data with SIR ASDDO.More SC-STs in region, more likely to have ASDDO higher than the state average Karnataka has 36-SC reserved constituencies and 15-ST reserved constituencies. As shown in the table, 18 of the 36 SC constituencies have more than non-Bengaluru state average ASDDO (13.47%) and SC constituencies like CV Raman Nagar within Bengaluru have more than the Bengaluru average. The category of “Shifted” in ASDDO in the non-Bengaluru constituencies range from 40-75%.Shifted and the ASDDO is highest, above 70%, especially in the migration-prone backward constituencies like Chittapur, Chincholi, Aurad, and Gulbarga rural which are considered most backward by the Govinda Rao committee. The most interesting and revealing lacuna of SIR is also shown in Anekal constituency which is part of Bengaluru. Here the ASDDO is more than 40% but “Shifted” is 81%. Most of the residents of Anekal commute to Bengaluru for livelihood and they are likely to have been listed as “Permanently Shifted” as they might have been absent at their residential address when the BLOs visited.Among the 15-ST constituencies, ten constituencies have more than the non-Bengaluru state average of 13.47% of ASDDO. Among them five ST constituencies have an average of 65% shifting especially those ST constituencies from the most backward Kalyana Karnataka Region (Maski, Manvi, Devadurga etc.). In Anekal, the ASDDO is more than 40% but “Shifted” is 81%.More shifting, more SC-ST constituenciesOf the 20 constituencies with the highest number of voters in the “Permanently Shifted” category, 14 are SC-ST reserved constituencies.Thus these statistical facts make it amply clear that SIR has not taken into cognisance the living realities of the SC-STs. The process has not been devised accounting for them in the electoral count. There is rather a kind of complete disdain on the part of the ECI, which in all likelihood has resulted in their exclusion. 14 of the 20 constituencies marked with the highest number of “Permanently Shifted” voters are SC-ST reserved seats.More the Muslim population, more likely higher ASDDO constituency The census and other reports provide the list of districts/regions where the concentration of Muslim population is relatively higher. It is true that it does not give an assembly-level break up. But it provides district, sub-district and taluk level break up.If a proportionate projection can be made on these data, it provides approximately proximate numbers religion wise at taluk level which would be nearer to assembly constituencies. District wise religion break ups are proximate to Lok Sabha constituencies. Keeping this small aberration in mind, the ASDDO in the constituencies where the Muslim population is relatively higher also provides a worrying picture. Among the 20 highest Muslim concentrated constituencies in Karnataka, except constituencies which fall under the coastal belt of the state which have the highest percentage of Muslim social organisations, education and awareness and Shiggaon, all other constituencies have ASDDO more than the state average and non-Bengaluru average.In some of the non-Bengaluru constituencies like Gulbarga North where the Muslim population is 52% – the ASDDO is 31%, Narasimharaj in Mysore where the population is 48.1% the ASSDO is 30%, Davanagere South where the Muslim population is 38.4% the ASDDO is 23.51%, Raichur where the Muslim population is 29.49% the ASDDO is also 29.9%, Bijapur City where the Muslim population is 32% the ASDDO is 27%, Bidar where the Muslim population is 30.6%, the ASDDO is 25.83%.Even in assembly constituencies in Bengaluru where Muslim percentage is relatively more like Pulikeshinagar, Jayanagar, Chickpet, Shivajinagar certainly have more than 40% ASDDO which is more than state average of 19.48%, even the non-Bengaluru constituencies which have more Muslim percentage cited above also have more than not only non-Bengaluru average but also state average itself and some are next to Bengaluru percentages. These figures can only be explained by the presence of a preponderant Muslim population and indicate not only structural exclusion which is more than obvious. This question becomes even more plausible considering the fact that among the ASDDOs the Muslim+ constituencies have the category of “Absent” more than “Shifted”. For example in Narashimharaja constituency the “Absent” category constitutes 40%, in Hubli-Dharwar East where Muslim electorate constitutes 40% the “Absent” category constitutes 53%, in Bijapur City “Absent” constitutes 48.31%. Most constituencies with higher Muslim population have ASDDO more than the state average and non-Bengaluru average.This becomes more problematic given the fact that BLOs do not follow any SOP for labelling electors as “Absent” and “Shifted” and document subjective conclusions. Thus, the ASSDO numbers and the whole process in Karnataka is another proof that this whole SIR exercise is nothing but an exercise in structural and intentional exclusion of eligible electorates. In fact, the whole SIR process has the alibi of the objective of eliminating ineligible voters. But according to Article 326 of Indian constitution, only those who are declared ineligible by law, those who have not attained the age of 18 and who are not Indian citizens are to be eliminated from the voter list. But none of the ASDDO categories qualify for elimination. Only the “Dead” and “Duplicate” category pertains to removal of the non-existent and not elimination.Also read: SIR Draft Rolls Show Highest Voter Deletions in States Where Elections Were Held in Last 3 YearsThe “Absent” and “Shifted” should be found and re-instated. That is the responsibility of the ECI. But the whole SIR process as once again established by the Karnataka example, is an exercise in making eligible voters ineligible. The Modi government and the ECI initiated this SIR suddenly on the pretext of identifying and expelling allegedly lakhs of illegal immigrants who have sneaked through the borders especially from Bangladesh. But hitherto the SIR process has not identified a single illegal immigrant. The May 27 Supreme Court order which constitutionalised the undemocratic SIR process had asked the ECI to identify illegal immigrants if found by the SIR process, and report them within four weeks to the competent authority in the home ministry. Although 13 weeks have passed since the Supreme Court passed the order, the ECI is evading the question and the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Sangh Parivar never even attempted to ask the poll body and inform the nation whether illegal immigrants were found.Thus SIR is just another Hindutva disenfranchisement exercise aimed to build a Hindutva Republic undoing the Indian Republic realised through Indian constitution and freedom movement. SIR can not be reformed. SIR should be scrapped along with other fascist onslaughts like delimitation, one nation one election etc in the pipe line. Note: The author has used AI to create the tables.Shivasundar is a columnist and activist in Karnataka.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.