‘Raees Ali’ for ‘Faizan Khan’: 10,470 voter names changed in one UP seat, FIR against officers

The Pilibhit electoral roll showed different names against the EPIC numbers of voters whose names had appeared in the final roll. This raised concern that legitimate voter identities had been changed after the Special Intensive Revision. The issue mattered because incorrect records could affect people’s ability to vote.

An inquiry found that a computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 applications between May 31 and August 29, 2026. No physical forms or supporting records were available. Of these entries, 10,470 corrections were approved, and the inquiry found irregularities in every approved entry. The Assistant District Election Officer filed an FIR against three people.

Authorities ordered action to correct all irregular entries. Departmental proceedings were ordered against two Electoral Registration Officers, and officials began examining the roles of Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. The District Election Officer was also directed to scrutinise Form 6 and Form 7 entries made by the computer assistant between April 10 and October 21.

Form 8 is the application used by an existing voter to request corrections in electoral-roll details. These may include information such as a name or other identifying particulars. It is different from an application to add a new voter or delete an existing voter. The article identifies Form 8 specifically as the route for “corrections” to voter details.

A voter submits the form with supporting records to election authorities. Officials then examine the request, compare it with the existing electoral record, and approve or reject the change. In Pilibhit, the expected paper trail was missing. The inquiry found 13,779 Form 8 entries but no physical forms or supporting records at the office.

The case shows why the process needs documentation and review. Authorities said 10,470 corrections had been approved, and every one was found irregular. They ordered action to rectify the entries and separately directed scrutiny of other applications entered by the same computer assistant.

The inquiry reported 13,779 Form 8 applications entered into the Pilibhit electoral records between May 31 and August 29, 2026. These applications were described as requests to correct voter details. The scale was large enough to trigger an official investigation after complaints about mismatched names and EPIC numbers.

Of the total entries, officials approved corrections in 10,470 cases. The inquiry then found irregularities in all 10,470 approved entries. No physical forms or supporting records relating to any of the 13,779 entries were available at the office, according to the statement issued by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Authorities said they were taking action to rectify every irregular Form 8 entry. They also ordered departmental proceedings against two Electoral Registration Officers and an inquiry into Assistant Electoral Registration Officers’ roles. Separately, the District Election Officer was told to scrutinise Form 6 and Form 7 entries made by the computer assistant between April 10 and October 21.

An EPIC number is linked to a voter’s electoral record. If a different person’s name appears against that number, officials may not be able to match the voter with the record used for election purposes. That can create confusion at verification points and may prevent the legitimate voter from being treated as registered.

Faizan Ali Khan said his EPIC number displayed the name “Raees Ali,” identified as the son or relative of Huzaib Ali. His brother Farhan’s details displayed “Gufran Aslam,” identified as Hamid Aslam’s son. Khan said neither person existed in his neighbourhood and alleged that fictitious names had been entered deliberately.

The article does not report a completed election-day refusal involving these voters. It does report Khan’s concern that such changes could deprive him and Farhan of their right to vote. Authorities ordered corrections and further scrutiny, while the inquiry examined how changes were made after the final roll was published and documents had been verified.

An EPIC number is the voter identity number used to connect a person with an electoral record. An electoral roll is the official list of voters for a constituency. A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a focused exercise to check and update voter records. These definitions are standard election-system terms; the article mainly describes how they were involved in the dispute.

In Uttar Pradesh, the final electoral roll after the SIR was published on April 10, 2026. Faizan Ali Khan said his name and his brother Farhan’s name were present in that final roll. Later, different names appeared when their EPIC numbers were checked. The complaint therefore focused on changes allegedly made after the final roll.

The Chief Electoral Officer ordered an inquiry after complaints about these mismatches. The investigation identified thousands of unsupported Form 8 entries. Authorities are now correcting irregular records and examining additional Form 6 and Form 7 entries. The case shows how changes after a revision can undermine confidence in the voter list.

The computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 applications in the Pilibhit records. Two Electoral Registration Officers, or EROs, were responsible for the approvals connected to the disputed entries, since departmental proceedings were ordered against both. The Assistant District Election Officer filed the FIR against three people. The inquiry also covers Assistant Electoral Registration Officers.

The article indicates several safeguards that should support reliable processing. A correction should have a physical form and supporting records. Election officials should review the request before approval, preserve the paper trail, and verify the voter’s identity and documents. The article also records that Khan and his brother appeared before authorities and presented documents that were verified.

Those safeguards failed or were not documented for the disputed entries. No physical forms or supporting records were available for the 13,779 applications. Authorities have ordered departmental proceedings, an inquiry into Assistant Electoral Registration Officers, and scrutiny of other entries made by the computer assistant.

A sound investigation should first identify every disputed record and preserve the digital and paper evidence behind each change. Officials can compare the current entry with the final electoral roll published after the SIR. They can contact affected voters, check EPIC numbers, examine submitted documents, and determine which officials entered or approved each application.

The Pilibhit inquiry provides concrete examples. Officials found 13,779 Form 8 entries but no physical forms or supporting records. They also reviewed complaints from Faizan Ali Khan, who said authorities had verified documents presented by him and his brother. Authorities can use such complaints, office records, approval trails, and voter statements to correct names and restore accurate details.

Before an election, officials can audit related additions and deletions, not only corrections. The Chief Electoral Officer directed scrutiny of all Form 6 and Form 7 entries made by the computer assistant between April 10 and October 21. A detailed report was sought, while action was underway to rectify irregular Form 8 entries.