Subscribe
Eminent scientist and Bharat Ratna awardee CNR Rao’s name has appeared on the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer’s list of electors flagged for notices during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) over a discrepancy in his electoral records. Election authorities, however, say no notice was served on the 92-year-old scientist, raising questions over how his name came to figure on the list. According to ECI, Professor Rao is a voter in Part No 59 of the Malleswaram Assembly constituency.
Under the SIR process, notices are generated for electors whose records are flagged for discrepancies or cannot be mapped to the 2002 electoral roll. The SIR notice phase covers electors whose records fall under the “no mapping” or “anomalies” categories. More than 43.81 lakh notices have been generated across Karnataka, of which 7.31 lakh had been delivered as of September 4.
The notices are handed over to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who are responsible for delivering them to voters, while the subsequent verification is conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO).
In Prof Rao’s case, the Election Commission has said election officials, including the State SVEEP Nodal Officer, the Bengaluru West City Corporation Commissioner, the Malleswaram ERO and the local BLO, went to his residence and handed him an enumeration form. An enumeration form is used to collect or verify an elector’s details during the SIR exercise, while a notice calls on an elector to appear for an enquiry or hearing when their record requires further verification.
The ECI says no notice was served on Rao or his family; instead, after verification, the BLO recommended his electoral record for approval by the AERO, who approved it for inclusion in the final roll on September 8.
The clarification came after The Hindu reported that Rao had been served a notice over a “self-name mismatch” and asked to appear for a hearing in Malleswaram, near the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). The report said the hearing was intended to establish his identity. The EC subsequently described the report as factually incorrect, saying that neither Rao nor any member of his family had been issued a notice.
The discrepancy itself arose when officials compared Rao’s current electoral entry with the 2002 roll. The current draft roll records his name as “Proff C.N.R. Rao S/O Nagesh Rav. H”, while the 2002 roll records “Rama S/O H. Nagesh”. The authorities say the mismatch was identified during the SIR verification process.
The apparent contradiction, therefore, is not over whether a discrepancy was found in Rao’s records but over the status of the notice: his name appears in the list of electors for whom notices were generated or listed, while the election authorities say that, after officials verified his details at his residence, no notice was actually served on him.
The ECI has said the BLO decided not to serve a notice after considering Rao’s stature and contribution and instead recommended his record directly for final approval. The AERO subsequently approved the entry for the final electoral roll on September 8. The Election Commission has also cited statements from the Malleswaram ERO and video footage recorded by the local BLO to support its account of what happened.
Prof Rao, who was born in Bengaluru’s Basavanagudi, is one of India’s most celebrated scientists. A pioneer in solid-state and structural chemistry, he was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 2014 and is the third scientist to receive India’s highest civilian honour. He has also received the Padma Shri, Padma Vibhushan and Karnataka Ratna.
This comes amid concerns over the scale and implementation of the SIR notice process in Karnataka. The ECI has said that voters whose records require verification must appear before the designated ERO or AERO with the required documents. The authority had earlier stated that notices would be personally served on the concerned voter or a family member or other person residing at the voter’s address, with an acknowledgement of receipt. However, many people who have found their names mentioned online have not received notices and are being forced to collect the notices from the BLOs.
TNM recently reported that voters have been receiving notices asking them to explain “logical discrepancies” and other errors flagged by the Election Commission of India’s system during the revision.
One of the major hurdles flagged by voters is that only the person named in the notice can appear for the hearing; family members or others cannot represent them. A hearing can also be rescheduled only once, at the ERO’s discretion.
