Journalism of Courage
Mythili S to Syed Ajaz Ahmed: After name change, lawyer approaches Karnataka High Court
The lawyer said she was marked as “permanently shifted " in the Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, or Other category during the ongoing SIR process in Karnataka.
The altercation took place on the premises of the Karnataka High Court. (File Photo)
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to “expeditiously” consider a lawyer’s representation seeking correction in the electoral roll after her name was replaced with a stranger’s name, even though other details remained unchanged.
In his order on September 17, Justice C M Poonacha said, “The Electoral Registration Officer shall consider the representation dated August 17, 2026, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The consideration of the said representation to be intimated to the petitioner.”
Advocate Mythili S said her name had been replaced with a stranger’s name, Syed Ajaz Ahmed, while her EPIC number, father’s name, age, and sex remain her own.
Mythili said she has been living at the same address under the Bommanahalli constituency in Bengaluru since 2009-2010. She added that she has been an active voter since 2015.
She said she never applied for any changes to her electoral details and that she was never given notice or a hearing, as required by Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, before any entry in the roll was altered.
She added that she was marked as “permanently shifted” in the Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate, or Other (ASDDO) category during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka.
She then made representations on August 5 and 13 and submitted Form 8 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, on August 17, seeking correction of her name in the rolls as per her Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC).
Story continues below this ad
Representing Mythili, Advocate B S Sushanth Sharma argued that the Form 8 submitted by her has been pending and if that continues, she faces the risk of being struck off the rolls and/or faces an imminent risk of non-consideration of her Form 8, on the strength of a false label attached to a record and inclusion of her name in the ASDDO list.
Counsel for the Election Commission contended that it had no objection to the court directing it to consider the petitioner””s representation. The court then disposed of the petition and directed ECI to consider her representations.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog
Advertisement