Around one in five electors were removed from the draft SIR rolls in Telangana and Karnataka.
The reasons given for voter deletions vary sharply between constituencies in both States.
EC guidelines do not clearly explain when an elector should be marked ‘Shifted’ instead of ‘Absent’.
The draft electoral rolls released after the enumeration phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Telangana and Karnataka show sharp differences in the reasons assigned for deleting electors’ names, raising questions about whether the exercise was applied consistently across constituencies.
The two States have seen the highest share of deletions in the draft SIR rolls among the major States covered by the exercise. Telangana, which had 3.38 crore electors before the SIR, and Karnataka, which had 5.54 crore, have each seen roughly one-fifth of their electoral rolls deleted. The Hindu has reported on the high levels of deletions across several constituencies in the two States. An analysis of the reasons recorded for these deletions also shows wide variations in the application of the four broad categories: ‘Shifted’ or ‘Permanently Shifted’, ‘Absent’, ‘Deceased’ and ‘Duplicate’.
The Election Commission (EC) has not clarified in its SIR-related notifications when officials, particularly Booth-level Officers (BLOs) conducting the enumeration, should classify an elector as ‘Shifted’ and when they should mark the person as ‘Absent’.
This distinction is significant because the EC’s Manual on Electoral Rolls (2023), which serves as the rule book for electoral roll revisions, states that “an absentee voter is that person who is found to be absent for a limited period from place of his ordinary residence where he is enrolled as an elector. An absentee may be with family or without family. But his name cannot be deleted, as in the existing law, a person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinarily residence shall not, by reason thereof, cease to be ordinarily resident therein.”
The definition raises the question of whether an elector found to be ‘Absent’ during enumeration should be deleted from the electoral roll in the first place.
Different reasons, different constituencies
The EC has not officially made public a separate breakdown of ‘Shifted’ and ‘Absent’ among the total deletions. Instead, it has combined the two categories and published only the aggregate figure for each State where the SIR has been conducted.
The constituency-level breakdown has been derived by journalists and members of civil society by processing thousands of lists containing details of electors whose names were deleted. The analysis shows substantial differences in the way the four reasons were applied across constituencies.
In Telangana, Jubilee Hills and Nizamabad (Urban) illustrate the variation. Both are urban constituencies of comparable size, but the reasons assigned to their deletions differ considerably.
Jubilee Hills recorded 1,79,510 deletions, of which 1,48,859, or 83 per cent, were marked as ‘Shifted’. Only 15,000 were recorded as ‘Absent’.
In Nizamabad (Urban), 83,282 names were deleted, with 50,307 classified as ‘Absent’.
Nakrekal (SC), a reserved constituency, presents another variation. Of the 20,169 names deleted there, not a single elector was recorded as ‘Absent’.
The Hindu has reported on the high levels of deletions in constituencies across Telangana. The constituency-wise analysis also shows wide variations in the reasons assigned for the deletions.
Karnataka shows similar variations
The pattern is also evident in Karnataka, where constituencies recorded sharply different proportions under the same deletion categories.
Hebbal saw around 1.3 lakh names deleted. Of these, 1.14 lakh, or 87 per cent, were marked as ‘Shifted’, while only 287 were classified as ‘Absent’.
Hubli-Dharwad-East recorded a different pattern. Of its roughly 47,000 deletions, around 25,000 were categorised as ‘Absent’.
In Bommanahalli, 2.65 lakh names were deleted, amounting to 54.8 per cent of its electorate. Yet only about 9,700 of those deleted were identified as deceased.
The differences are notable because the EC has not publicly specified how BLOs should consistently distinguish between an elector who has shifted and one who is temporarily absent. The EC’s own Manual on Electoral Rolls states that temporary absence from a person’s ordinary residence should not, by itself, result in deletion.
The Hindu has reported the scale of deletions in several constituencies in Telangana and Karnataka. Separately, the constituency-level data derived from the detailed lists of deleted electors shows substantial differences in how the categories were applied.
A coherent and uniform application of a well-defined enumeration exercise is unlikely to show such extremities.
