SIR Karnataka Application Builder

130. Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules delineates the procedure to be followed where the ERO forms an opinion, before final publication of the roll, that certain entries are liable to be deleted on account of ineligibility, error, or change in status. The Rule mandates, in the first instance, the preparation of a list of such electors proposed to be deleted, followed by its publication, along with a notice specifying the time and place at which the question of deletion shall be considered. It further contemplates an opportunity for affected persons to submit objections, whether oral or in writing, which are to be duly considered before any decision is taken. Crucially, the proviso engrafts an additional safeguard by requiring that, wherever the proposed deletion is founded on grounds such as non-residence or ineligibility, the concerned elector must, as far as practicable, be afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such action.

131. The said Rule, in essence, prescribes that no name already entered in the electoral roll shall be deleted without prior notice to the concerned elector and without affording an opportunity of hearing. The question, therefore, is whether the SIR framework dispenses with these safeguards, or whether it incorporates them in substance, albeit through a structured process.

132. A close reading of the SIR Guidelines indicates that the process commences with a comprehensive house-to-house enumeration, wherein each existing elector is provided with a pre-filled Enumeration Form and is guided in its completion. Paragraphs 3 (b) and (c) of the Guidelines further require Booth Level Officers to make repeated visits in cases where electors are not available, thereby ensuring that the exercise is not reduced to a one-time or perfunctory attempt. This stage, in effect, serves as the initial point of engagement with the elector, ensuring awareness and participation in the revision process.

133. The procedural framework is further strengthened by the requirement under Paragraphs 3 (e) and (f) of the Guidelines, which provides that each elector submit the Enumeration Form along with the requisite information and documents, coupled with an acknowledgement mechanism evidencing receipt.

134. The preparation of the draft electoral roll marks the next stage. Paragraph 4(b) of the Guidelines provides that the draft roll shall include the names of all electors who have submitted their Enumeration Forms, while those in respect of whom forms have not been received are not included at this stage. It is of significance that such non-inclusion is not tantamount to a final deletion, but is only a provisional step, preceding the statutory process of claims and objections.

135. The heart of the procedural safeguard lies in the claims and objections stage. Paragraph 5 (a) of the Guidelines mandates that the ERO shall scrutinise the eligibility of electors in accordance with the constitutional and statutory requirements. This ensures that the enquiry into eligibility remains anchored within the framework of the RP Act.

136. More importantly, in cases where the ERO entertains any doubt regarding the eligibility of an elector, Paragraph 5(b) of the Guidelines mandates the initiation of a suo motu enquiry and the issuance of notice to the concerned elector, calling upon them to show cause. This requirement directly incorporates the essence of Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, ensuring that no adverse decision is taken without prior notice and an opportunity of hearing. The Guidelines further contemplate that the ERO shall arrive at a determination based on field verification and documentary material, and shall pass a reasoned or speaking order in each case. Such an onerous duty serves as an important check against arbitrariness and ensures that the exercise of power is both transparent and accountable.

137. The framework also provides for wide dissemination and transparency through the display of lists of claims and objections. These lists are to be exhibited at the office of the ERO and made available on official platforms, thereby enabling public scrutiny and participation. This aspect assumes significance in a process that has a direct bearing on electoral rights. The aforesaid safeguard was further strengthened by this Court, namely Order dated 14.08.2025, directing the Commission to publish the list of approximately 65 lakh electors who had been excluded from the draft roll, along with the reasons for such exclusion, and to give ample coverage to such publication through newspapers, electronic media and radio.

138. Further, the availability of an appellate remedy constitutes an additional safeguard. Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines expressly recognises that any decision of the ERO is subject to appeal under Section 24 of the RP Act. This ensures that the process is not final at the initial stage and that any erroneous exclusion can be corrected through a statutory mechanism.

139. Finally, the Guidelines under Paragraph 11 (d) clarify that exclusion from the final electoral roll occurs only after completion of the scrutiny process, including enquiry and opportunity of hearing, and that such electors retain the right to challenge the decision. This makes it clear that the operative act of deletion is preceded by due process, consistent with the mandate of Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules.

140. Viewed holistically, the scheme underlying the SIR Guidelines reveals that the safeguards embedded in Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules have not been abrogated, but are instead operationalised within a broader and structured revision framework. The essential elements of Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, namely, identification of doubtful entries, publication of such cases, notice to the concerned elector, and a determination after considering objections, find clear reflection across the various stages of the SIR process. The form may differ, but the substance remains intact.

141. In particular, what Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules contemplates as a singular, event specific exercise of deletion is, under the SIR framework, distributed across multiple procedural stages, beginning with enumeration, followed by draft publication, and culminating in the claims and objections process. It is at this latter stage that the core safeguards are activated: the elector is put to notice, an enquiry is undertaken where doubt exists, and a reasoned determination is made. The requirement of affording a "reasonable opportunity" to show cause, as envisaged in the proviso to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules, thus stands fully incorporated.

142. Equally, the contention that non-inclusion in the draft roll results in automatic or final deletion cannot be accepted. The draft roll is, by design, provisional. It triggers a participatory process in which electors are afforded an opportunity to assert their entitlement, produce supporting material, and contest any proposed exclusion. The finality attaches only after this process is complete, and after compliance with the safeguards of notice, enquiry, and hearing.

Para 6. ...it becomes clear that whenever any authority is called upon to decide even for the limited purpose of another law, whether a person is or is not a citizen of India, the authority must carefully examine the question in the context of the constitutional provisions and the provisions of the Citizenship Act extracted hereinbefore. In the instant case Article 323 of the Constitution provides for one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency; so does 1950 Act. This has to be done under the Superintendence, direction and control of Election Commission as per the mandate of Article 324 the Constitution. Section 16 of the 1950 Act in terms states that a person shall disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is not a citizen of India. Put positively a person must be a citizen of India to be entitled to inclusion in the electoral roll. Sub-section (2) of the said section empowers striking off the name of a person who incurs a disqualification set out in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub section (1) after his name is entered in the register of electoral rolls. Otherwise every person who is not less than 18 years of age on the qualifying date and is ordinarily resident in a given constituency is entitled to be registered. Section 22 empowers the Electoral Registration Officer for a constituency to delete any entry already made if on enquiry he is satisfied that it is erroneous or defective in any particular or needs to be transposed to another place in the roll or the concerned person has died or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in that constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered. Of course before any such action is taken the person concerned, except in the case of death, must be given an opportunity to be heard. Similar is the provision in Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules which empowers the registration officer before final publication of the roll to delete the name or names of any person or persons which have been entered owing to inadvertence or error if the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in that constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered. The procedure for exercise of the said power is set out therein and conforms to the requirements of the principles of natural justice. It is obvious from the above that two situations arise; the first where the name is to be entered on the rolls for the first time and the second where the name already entered is required to be deleted. In the first mentioned situation before the name is entered on the rolls, the concerned officer must be satisfied that the person seeking to have his name entered is not disqualified by reason of his not being a citizen of India. Therefore, he would be justified in requiring the concerned person to show evidence that he is a citizen of India. In the second situation, since the name is already entered, it must be presumed that before entering his name the concerned officer must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute. This would be so even if we invoke Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. But then possibilities of mistakes cannot be ruled out. These mistakes, if any, would have to be corrected. Even if we are to assume (without deciding) that the words "is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll" used in Section 22 of the 1950 Act or Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules are wide enough to cover the question relating to citizenship, the issue would have to be decided after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the opportunity of being heard before deletion of the name is to be a meaningful and purposive one, it goes without saying that the concerned person whose name is borne on the roll and is intended to be removed must be informed why a suspicion has arisen in regard to his status as a citizen of India so that he may be able to show that the basis for the suspicion is ill founded. Unless the basis for the doubt is disclosed, it would not be possible for the concerned person to remove the doubt and explain any circumstance or circumstances responsible for the doubt.