Karnataka will explore legal options as EC response on SIR concerns is awaited, says Priyank Kharge

Published 29 June 2026 · politics

With the Election Commission yet to respond to the Karnataka government’s concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, scheduled to begin in

With the Election Commission yet to respond to the Karnataka government’s concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, scheduled to begin in the State on June 30, Home Minister Priyank Kharge on Monday said the government would examine the available legal options. “We have communicated the State Cabinet’s concerns to the Election Commission and also to the Chief Electoral Officer in Karnataka. We are yet to receive any response. We will evaluate all the legal options available to us if the required clarifications are not forthcoming,” Mr. Kharge said.

He said the government had sought clarity on several aspects of the exercise, including the definition of a “logical discrepancy”, the methodology used to identify such discrepancies, the software deployed for the exercise, the functioning of the tribunal mechanism, and the process for addressing grievances of voters whose names may be affected. “We have not received any reply from the Election Commission. It does not appear that they are interested in answering these questions,” the Home Minister said. Not against SIR Clarifying that the State was not opposed to the Special Intensive Revision itself, Mr. Kharge said the government supported efforts to ensure a clean electoral roll but objected to any process that could exclude genuine voters.

“We want a hygienic voters’ list. It is the Election Commission’s responsibility to ensure that only eligible citizens remain on the electoral rolls. But the exercise should be inclusive and not become an exercise in exclusion,” he said. Referring to similar exercises carried out in Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, the Minister alleged that the names of many genuine voters had been left out in the name of identifying “logical discrepancies”. Transparency Kharge also questioned the transparency of the technology being used for the exercise. “If artificial intelligence or software is being used to detect discrepancies, the Election Commission must disclose the criteria.

Who is auditing the software? What are the standards being followed? None of this has been explained,” he said. He further expressed concern over the effectiveness of the tribunal mechanism available for voters whose names are deleted from the rolls, arguing that such forums were already overburdened and unlikely to dispose of cases within the stipulated timeframe.