Karnataka SIR: After Padma Shri Hajabba, Bharat Ratna CNR Rao’s name mismatch triggers controversy

Being a well-known personality appears to have its advantages during Karnataka’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

After Padma Shri awardee Harekala Hajabba, Bharat Ratna awardee Professor C.N.R. Rao’s name mismatch has also been resolved quickly by election officials.

The Election Commission has clarified that Rao was not served any notice during the SIR process, contrary to an earlier report that said he had been served notice over a discrepancy in his name.

Rao’s electoral record, however, has brought into focus a familiar issue surrounding the SIR exercise: how easily can a voter overcome a discrepancy between an old electoral record and current documents?

According to the Additional District Election Officer, BBMP North, Rao is a voter in Part No. 59 of the 157-Malleswaram assembly constituency. His name appears in the current draft roll as “Proff C.N.R. Rao S/O Nagesh Rav. H”, while the 2002 electoral roll records him as “Rama S/O H. Nagesh”.

Officials said the enumeration form was handed over to Rao at his residence by senior election officials, including the State SVEEP Nodal Officer, the Commissioner of Bengaluru West City Corporation, the Malleswaram ERO and the BLO of Part No. 59.

The BLO did not issue a notice and instead recommended the record for approval. The AERO subsequently approved the record on September 8 for inclusion in the final electoral roll.

The clarification comes days after Padma Shri awardee Hajabba faced a similar issue during SIR verification. His name appeared as “Hajabba” in the 2002 electoral roll, while his present voter ID and other documents carry “Harekala Hajabba”. He was initially asked to appear with original documents, but the notice was later withdrawn after officials visited his residence and collected the required records.

Both cases were resolved without affecting the electoral status of the two voters. But they also underline the practical difficulties that can arise when present-day names do not exactly match electoral records from 2002.

For Rao and Hajabba, establishing their identities was relatively straightforward because they had multiple official records and a well-documented public identity. For an ordinary voter, however, a difference in spelling, initials, surname or the way a name was recorded more than two decades ago may not be as easy to explain.

Elderly voters, those who have moved houses or districts, and people whose documents carry slightly different versions of their names may have to spend time tracing old records or producing supporting documents to remain voters.