A coalition of groups under the banner ‘My Vote, My Right’ on Saturday protested and started a campaign opposing the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) proposed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that the exercise could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement of marginalised communities, including women, Dalits, Adivasis, and working poor.  

The group has requested the Karnataka government to resist the implementation of the SIR in the State until the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.  

The opposition stems for the ECI’s June 2025 order which announced that a nationwide SIR would be conducted. While the ECI has described the exercise as a voter roll revision, protesters argue that it amounts to a fresh preparation of electoral rolls, requiring even existing voters to re-establish their eligibility. 

In Karnataka, preparatory voter roll mapping for the SIR has already begun, drawing criticism from civil society groups. They allege that the process is being carried out in a hasty and opaque manner, with the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka failing to disclose details regarding the protocols or progress of the exercise. Booth Level Officers (BLOs), they claim, are under severe pressure to meet unrealistic targets, as every voter listed in the 2025 electoral roll is required to be mapped to entries in the 2002 roll. 

Particular concerns have been raised over the mapping process. According to activists, BLOs are permitted to identify voters but there is no provision to record women as daughters-in-law. As a result, women who have relocated after marriage are required to independently trace their parents’ or grandparents’ names in older electoral rolls and submit those details. Campaigners argue that this design will inevitably exclude large numbers of women and question how voters excluded during the mapping phase would be included once the SIR is formally implemented. The campaigners further allege that the SIR has been used to target Muslim voters in several States through the misuse of Form 7, which is meant for objecting to the inclusion of voters, typically in cases of death.  


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *