Karnataka chief electoral office admits multiple voter IDs generated for same person during SIR

Karnataka’s special intensive revision, or SIR, produced errors in the electoral rolls. Multiple Elector Photo Identity Card numbers were sometimes generated for one person. In other cases, one ID number appeared in the final rolls of two Assembly constituencies. These problems raised concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the revised voter list.

The Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer linked the duplicate IDs to separately processed Form 6 applications. Duplicate constituency entries arose when migration was approved in one place but deletion from the old constituency was delayed. Roll operations were then frozen before final publication under statutory provisions.

More than 99.3 lakh voters were deleted from the final list published on October 27. The total fell from 5.5 crore to 4.5 crore, a decrease of about 17.9%. Officials referred the disputed cases for verification and corrective action. The revision remains controversial because critics fear genuine voters could be removed and electoral outcomes affected.

An Elector Photo Identity Card, commonly called an EPIC or voter ID card, is an official identity document issued to a registered elector. Its number is a unique reference used in electoral records to connect the card with that elector’s entry on the voter list. The article uses “EPIC number” and “voter ID number” for this identifying reference.

The number matters because electoral officials can use it to track a person’s registration across electoral-roll records. It can reveal whether an entry is duplicated, moved, deleted, or incorrectly retained. In Mahadevapura, the reported records linked 803 EPIC numbers to 397 people, highlighting possible duplication.

The article shows that an EPIC number is not automatically proof that every roll entry is correct. Processing mistakes can generate multiple numbers, and delayed deletion can leave the same number in two constituencies. Officials therefore sent the cases for verification and action under election law.

The most striking Mahadevapura figure was the mismatch between voter ID numbers and people: at least 803 Elector Photo Identity Card numbers were linked to only 397 persons. The report also found people holding multiple voter IDs and one ID number appearing in the final rolls of two different Assembly constituencies.

The statewide revision produced a much larger numerical change. Karnataka’s final voter list, published on October 27, deleted the names of more than 99.3 lakh voters. Before the exercise, the state had 5.5 crore voters; afterward, the list contained 4.5 crore.

That change represents a decrease of about 17.9%, according to the article. Officials said individual cases were sent to district election officers, additional district election officers, and electoral registration officers. They are expected to verify the records and take remedial action according to law.

The Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer said duplicate voter IDs arose from the way some applications were submitted and processed. During SIR, certain applicants filed more than one Form 6 application seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls through the Citizen Service Portal. Each application entered the processing system separately.

Because the applications were handled independently, the system could generate a new voter ID number for the same individual more than once. This created cases in which one person held multiple EPIC numbers. The explanation addressed the Mahadevapura findings, where at least 803 numbers were linked to 397 people.

The officer described the duplicate generation as inadvertent and connected it to “procedural circumstances during data processing.” The cases were referred to district and electoral registration officials for verification and remedial action. The admission shows why careful matching and correction are important during a large voter-roll revision.

The same voter ID number could appear in two constituencies when a migration and deletion were processed at different speeds. A Form 8 application to move an elector to a new constituency might be approved first. The elector’s name would then be added to the new constituency’s roll.

The corresponding Form 7 application, which sought deletion from the previous constituency, could remain pending. As a result, the old entry was still present when the new entry was included. The same ID number therefore appeared in both final electoral rolls.

The chief electoral officer said this happened because electoral-roll operations were frozen under statutory provisions before the final publication of the rolls. The cases were sent to district election officers, additional district election officers, and electoral registration officers. They must verify the records and take corrective action in accordance with the law.

Form 6 is used by an applicant seeking inclusion in the electoral rolls. It is the form involved when a person asks to be added as an elector. The article says some people submitted multiple Form 6 applications through the Citizen Service Portal during SIR.

Form 7 is used to seek deletion of a person’s name from an electoral roll. Form 8 is used to seek migration to another constituency. In the cases described, Form 8 applications were approved and names were added to new constituencies, while related Form 7 deletion applications remained pending.

That mismatch created duplicate constituency entries. A person could appear in both the former and new constituency, and the same voter ID number could appear in both rolls. Officials said statutory freezing of roll operations before final publication contributed to the delay. The disputed records were referred for verification and remedial action under the law.

An electoral roll is the official list of people registered as electors in a particular constituency. It is used to organize voter registration and elections. Karnataka’s SIR reviewed these lists, added some names, removed others, and handled requests to move voters between constituencies.

Being included or excluded from an electoral roll is not the same as receiving a final legal determination of citizenship. The article says the Supreme Court upheld the revision’s legality in May but clarified that SIR does not mean the Election Commission can decide whether a person is an Indian citizen.

That distinction matters because the revision had major practical effects. More than 99.3 lakh names were removed from Karnataka’s final list, and concerns arose about genuine voters being excluded. The article also reports that some states used SIR removals when dealing with ration cards and passport renewals, making accurate roll verification especially significant.