Karnataka’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls has produced a striking gap between the number of voters removed from the draft lists and the number of people who have applied to return. The problem is most visible in Bengaluru, where Form 6 applications amount to only between 4.6% and 6.1% of the voters deleted under the absent, shifted, dead or duplicate category, known as ASDDO.
The figures, reported by the Times of India and based on data from the office of Karnataka’s chief electoral officer, show that 10.07 lakh Form 6 applications were received after the rolls were frozen on June 16. That is equivalent to roughly 9% of the 1.07 crore voters struck off the draft rolls under ASDDO. But the comparison is not a direct measure of voter restoration. Form 6 is also used by first-time voters and people who were never previously enrolled, while the state’s electoral office does not currently know how many applicants were among those deleted under ASDDO.
That limitation is central to understanding the numbers. The 9% figure may appear to show how many removed voters have sought re-enrolment, but it actually compares all Form 6 applications with all ASDDO deletions. An official from the chief electoral officer’s office told the Times of India that the precise number of deleted voters among the applicants could not be calculated because the database had moved to the Election Commission of India and was no longer accessible to the state office.
The result is a measurement problem at the heart of a process that will determine who appears on the final electoral rolls. The available data indicate a low volume of applications, particularly in Bengaluru, but do not establish how many eligible voters have successfully recovered their registration. The distinction matters because a low application rate can reflect different conditions: voters may not know they were removed, may not understand that Form 6 is required, may face difficulty using the application process, or may have moved and no longer seek registration in the same constituency. The supplied data do not establish which of these factors is dominant.
The geographic pattern nevertheless provides an important urban signal. Udupi recorded the highest rate of Form 6 applications relative to ASDDO deletions at 26.3%, followed by Dakshina Kannada at 23.6%, Uttara Kannada at 18.2%, Chikkamagaluru at 16.3% and Tumakuru at 16.1%. In contrast, the three Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike regions recorded much lower rates: 4.6% in BBMP South, 5.6% in BBMP Central and 6.1% in BBMP North. Bellary recorded 6.6%, while Bengaluru Urban recorded 6.7%.
These variations show that the revision is not producing a uniform administrative outcome across Karnataka. The available information does not explain why coastal and smaller districts recorded higher application rates than Bengaluru’s urban constituencies. However, the contrast makes Bengaluru the key area for scrutiny because even the highest application rate among its three BBMP divisions remains far below the rates reported in Udupi and Dakshina Kannada.
## Bengaluru’s administrative problem
Bengaluru’s lower replacement rate is significant because the city’s electoral administration operates within a highly mobile urban environment. The report identifies the ASDDO category as covering voters recorded as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate, but it does not provide a breakdown of deletions by category. Without that breakdown, it is not possible to determine whether Bengaluru’s low Form 6 rate is primarily linked to residential mobility, duplicate records, deaths, data errors or limited public awareness.
The absence of a category-wise comparison also makes it difficult to assess whether the same administrative action has different consequences in rural and urban constituencies. A voter who has moved within Bengaluru, moved out of the city, or been incorrectly classified as absent may have a different path to re-enrolment. Yet the public number currently available combines all four ASDDO classifications into one figure.
This is where the electoral roll revision becomes an urban governance issue rather than only an election-process update. Urban voter lists depend on the quality of address records, local verification, communication with residents and coordination between state and national election authorities. Bengaluru’s low application rate suggests that the effectiveness of the revision cannot be assessed only by counting applications. It also requires a clear account of who was removed, who applied, who was verified and who was finally restored.
The process has also created a practical asymmetry. For voters deleted under ASDDO, filing Form 6 as a new voter was the only route available before the claims and objections deadline of September 23, according to the report. The same form was available to first-time applicants and others not enrolled elsewhere. This means that the application channel was broad, but the publicly reported data do not distinguish the different groups using it.
That distinction is especially important before the final rolls are published. Of the 10.07 lakh Form 6 applications, 7.86 lakh were received before the September 23 deadline, according to an earlier statement by chief electoral officer Anbu Kumar. Once verified and processed, these applicants are expected to be included in the final SIR rolls. The report does not provide the number already verified, rejected or pending, so the application total should not be treated as the final number of restored voters.
## The importance of the October 27 deadline
The final SIR rolls are due to be published on October 27. That date will move the debate from applications to outcomes. The relevant questions will be how many applications were accepted, how many applicants were deleted voters, whether any districts show unusually high rejection or pending rates, and whether the final rolls reveal a substantial difference between draft deletions and restored enrolments.
The chief electoral officer’s office has said it plans a mop-up exercise after the final rolls are published to enrol voters who were missed. That commitment acknowledges that the final publication will not necessarily end the administrative process. It also makes the transparency of the mop-up important. The supplied report does not specify the exercise’s duration, eligibility procedures, staffing or method of identifying voters who may have been omitted.
A mop-up exercise can address some exclusions, but it cannot by itself resolve the information gap over the 1.07 crore ASDDO deletions. If the state and the Election Commission do not publish a clear reconciliation between deleted voters, Form 6 applicants and final inclusions, citizens and political parties will be left with only broad application totals. Those totals may indicate the scale of activity without showing whether the process corrected the underlying exclusions.
The reported numbers therefore point to two separate issues. The first is participation: only 10.07 lakh Form 6 applications had been received against 1.07 crore ASDDO deletions, with Bengaluru recording particularly low ratios. The second is accountability in measurement: the state cannot currently identify how many of those applicants were among the deleted voters because it no longer has access to the relevant database.
The second issue is not a technical footnote. It determines whether the headline 9% figure can answer the question citizens are most likely to ask: how many people removed from the rolls have managed to return? At present, the available data cannot answer that question. They show the scale of deletions, the volume of applications and wide district-level differences, but not the number of deleted voters successfully restored.
For Bengaluru, the final electoral rolls and the post-publication mop-up will therefore be the key tests of the revision process. The evidence currently available establishes that the city’s Form 6 application rates are among Karnataka’s lowest and that the recovery figure is overstated when all applicants are treated as deleted voters. It does not establish how many eligible voters will ultimately be missing from the final list. That remains the central fact to monitor when the revised rolls are published on October 27.
