SP alleges thousands of duplicate names in UP voter rolls, seeks their removal

The Samajwadi Party alleges that electoral rolls contain repeated entries for the same voters. It says the problem appears across most booths in the Allahabad-Jhansi Graduates' Constituency, and in Bakshi Ka Talab, Garautha, Babina, and Mauranipur. The party has demanded that the alleged duplicates be examined and removed.

The examples include Sudhir Kumar Patel appearing twice at booth 247 and Phoolmati appearing four times at booth 483. In Garautha, Usha allegedly appears against seven serial numbers, while Rahul appears five times. Other examples involve repeated names, relatives, addresses, dates of birth, or different EPIC numbers.

The memorandum describes selected examples while making a broader claim of thousands of duplicate entries. The SP says unchecked errors could make it harder for genuine voters to cast ballots. It has urged the Election Commission to conduct an impartial examination and delete confirmed duplicates.

An electoral roll is a constituency’s list of people registered to vote. It organizes voters by polling station and serial number. Election officials use it to determine whether a person is listed for that election. Accurate rolls matter because missing or incorrect records can obstruct a genuine voter’s participation.

Two entries may be potential duplicates when they repeat identifying details. These can include the voter’s name, relative’s name, address, age, or date of birth. The SP cited Sudhir Kumar Patel twice at one booth, with the same relative, address, and birth date. It also reported entries with different EPIC numbers.

A repeated name alone does not prove fraud or duplication. Different people can share names, and records may contain clerical mistakes. Officials must compare the full details, check the voter’s actual residence and identity, and hear affected people before deleting any record.

Counting the examples in the memorandum produces five constituencies: Allahabad-Jhansi Graduates', Bakshi Ka Talab, Garautha, Babina, and Mauranipur. Together, the article identifies 14 polling booths. These are examples from the party’s scrutiny, not a complete count of every alleged duplicate entry in Uttar Pradesh.

The listed serial-number records total 45. That count includes ten records in the five Allahabad-Jhansi examples, twelve in Bakshi Ka Talab, twelve in Garautha, six in Babina, and five in Mauranipur. Some are pairs, while others involve four, five, or seven entries for one named voter.

The SP’s overall allegation is broader than these itemized examples. It claims that thousands of duplicate entries were found in several constituencies. The article does not provide a separate statewide total or confirm that every listed record is actually duplicated.

The memorandum was a formal complaint about alleged irregularities in Uttar Pradesh electoral rolls. Acting on Akhilesh Yadav’s directions, SP state president Shyam Lal Pal submitted it to the state’s Chief Electoral Officer in Lucknow. The party said its scrutiny had identified repeated entries in several constituencies.

The SP gave specific booth numbers, serial numbers, voter names, relatives, addresses, dates of birth, and EPIC-number details. These examples were intended to show how the same person allegedly appeared multiple times. The memorandum requested immediate action rather than leaving the alleged discrepancies unresolved.

The party’s stated concern was the effect on genuine voters. It warned that incorrect or duplicate records could create difficulties when people try to cast ballots. It urged the Election Commission to conduct an impartial examination and delete duplicate entries after the alleged problems are addressed.

Duplicate or incorrect entries can make the voter list harder to use at polling stations. If officials find conflicting records, a genuine voter may face delays, questions, or difficulty proving that the correct entry belongs to them. The article does not describe a confirmed incident, but the SP says the risk is serious enough to require urgent review.

For example, the party reported one voter appearing several times with different serial numbers and, in some cases, different EPIC numbers. Such records could create uncertainty about which entry should be used. The SP specifically cited repeated entries in Allahabad-Jhansi, Bakshi Ka Talab, Garautha, Babina, and Mauranipur.

The wider consequence could be reduced confidence in the roll and disruption during voting. The SP warned that genuine voters might struggle to cast ballots, potentially affecting the electoral process. The article says the Election Commission was urged to examine the claims, but it does not report the outcome.

Voter-roll errors are normally investigated by comparing the full record, not just the name. Officials can review the person’s address, relative’s name, age, birth date, and identification details. They may seek documents, contact the voter, inspect relevant records, and invite objections before deciding whether an entry should be corrected, merged, or removed.

The article gives examples that require this kind of checking. Phoolmati allegedly appears four times at one booth, while Usha allegedly appears seven times at another. Some entries carry different EPIC numbers. These details may indicate duplication, but they must be matched against the real person and the official registration history.

Verification protects both election integrity and genuine voters. A confirmed duplicate should be corrected or deleted through the proper authority. An unverified deletion could wrongly remove an eligible person, while an uncorrected duplicate could cause confusion. The SP therefore requested an impartial examination before action.

Voter registration creates an official record showing that a person is enrolled to vote in a constituency. That record appears in the electoral roll, which is organized by polling station and serial number. The roll is therefore the working list used to check voters at the assigned booth.

An EPIC number is a voter identification number linked to an electoral record. The article notes that some allegedly repeated entries carried different EPIC numbers, showing why officials must compare more than one field. A name, number, address, relative, and date of birth should be assessed together when checking whether records belong to one person.

At election time, officials consult the relevant polling-station roll to locate the voter’s entry and verify eligibility under the applicable procedures. Registration, identification details, and booth assignment must align. The article’s allegations show why accurate records matter, but it does not describe the full voting procedure or any confirmed deletions.