Bengaluru: With the Election Commission yet to respond to the Karnataka government’s objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that commenced across the State on June 30, Home Minister Priyank Kharge has warned that the government was prepared to explore legal options if its concerns continued to go unanswered.
“We have formally communicated the State Cabinet’s concerns to the Election Commission as well as the Chief Electoral Officer in Karnataka. So far, there has been no response. If the necessary clarifications are not forthcoming, we will examine all legal remedies available to us,” Mr. Kharge told reporters.
The Minister said the State had sought detailed explanations on several crucial aspects of the voter roll revision exercise, including how “logical discrepancies” are defined, the methodology used to identify them, the software or artificial intelligence tools deployed, the functioning of the tribunal mechanism, and the safeguards available for voters whose names could be removed from the electoral rolls.
“We have received absolutely no reply from the Election Commission. It does not appear that they are interested in answering these legitimate questions,” he said.
Making it clear that the Karnataka government is not opposed to the Special Intensive Revision itself, Mr. Kharge said the objective of maintaining an accurate electoral roll was welcome, provided it did not come at the cost of disenfranchising genuine voters.
“We want a clean and hygienic voters’ list. It is the Election Commission’s constitutional responsibility to ensure that only eligible citizens remain on the rolls. But this exercise should be inclusive – not an exercise in exclusion,” he asserted.
The Minister pointed to similar revision exercises in Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, alleging that many legitimate voters had reportedly found their names deleted under the pretext of identifying ‘logical discrepancies’.
Raising fresh concerns over the technology being used in the exercise, Mr. Kharge questioned the transparency surrounding the Election Commission’s use of software and artificial intelligence.
“If AI or any software is being used to detect discrepancies, the Election Commission must disclose the criteria. Who is auditing the software? What standards are being followed? None of this has been made public,” he said, calling for greater transparency in a process that could affect millions of voters.
He also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the tribunal mechanism available to citizens whose names are deleted from the electoral rolls. According to the Minister, such tribunals are already burdened with pending cases and are unlikely to resolve fresh disputes within the prescribed timelines, potentially leaving genuine voters without an effective remedy before elections.
The standoff between the Karnataka government and the Election Commission appears headed for a legal and political confrontation unless the poll body addresses the State’s concerns.
