‘Unusual’ names, details crop up in electoral roll for MLC polls in U.P.; ECI cites software error

The electoral roll contained bizarre entries instead of accurate personal details. Examples included “Ram ne Yadav ko maara” and “Ram ne Sharma ko maara” appearing as names. One voter’s father’s name was recorded as “B.Com.” Such mistakes matter because electoral rolls identify eligible voters and guide polling officials on election day.

Officials said many errors arose when software transliterated English names into Hindi. Transliteration should reproduce a name’s sound, but the system sometimes translated separate English words into a Hindi sentence. Thus, “Ramhit Yadav,” if entered as “Ram hit Yadav,” could become “Ram ne Yadav ko maara.” The “B.Com” entry appeared to result from human error or negligence.

The errors were found in the Allahabad-Jhansi graduates’ constituency and other rolls for 11 constituencies. Navdeep Rinwa said 158 entries appeared unusual among 14.81 lakh names. An inquiry confirmed discrepancies, and officials ordered document checks so eligible voters would still be allowed to vote.

An electoral roll is an official list of people registered to vote in a particular constituency. It normally contains identifying details used to match a voter with their registration. The list is central to an election because it establishes who is eligible to participate and gives polling staff a reference at voting stations.

In this case, Uttar Pradesh prepared digital rolls for graduate and teachers’ constituencies. The platform handled registration, application processing, approvals, rejections, duplicate checks, serialisation and downloading of rolls. These functions were intended to create usable, accurate lists for polling across the affected constituencies.

The unusual entries showed why accuracy matters. A mistranslated name or incorrect father’s name can make a voter’s record look unreliable, even when the person is eligible. Navdeep Rinwa therefore directed officials to check necessary documents and allow eligible voters to vote. District magistrates could be held responsible if voters were wrongly turned away.

The reported errors involved 158 entries across the electoral rolls for 11 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council constituencies. The total electorate covered 14.81 lakh names, or about 1.481 million voters. This comparison shows that the errors affected a very small proportion of the overall list, even though individual mistakes could still create serious voting problems.

The unusual records included mistranslated names and a father’s name entered as “B.Com.” Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa said the software caused several cases by translating words instead of transliterating names. Other mistakes, including the “B.Com” entry, appeared connected to human error or negligence.

An inquiry led by Jhansi Divisional Commissioner Vimal Kumar Dubey confirmed errors in the rolls. Officials were told to check documents at polling stations and let eligible voters cast ballots despite clerical or printing mistakes. The figures therefore show both limited scale and the need for individual safeguards.

The problem began with the difference between transliteration and translation. Transliteration converts a name written in one script into another script while preserving its pronunciation. Translation instead interprets words and expresses their meaning. For personal names, translation can create nonsense or an entirely different phrase.

Officials gave a clear example. If “Ramhit Yadav” was mistakenly typed with a space as “Ram hit Yadav,” the software could read “Ram,” “hit” and “Yadav” as separate words. It then translated the phrase into Hindi as “Ram ne Yadav ko maara,” meaning a sentence about Ram hitting Yadav, rather than preserving the person’s name.

The platform was introduced for digital preparation of graduate and teachers’ electoral rolls. An editing option could have corrected such records, but some errors remained in the final list. The incident led to an inquiry and highlighted the need for careful review of automated entries.

Election officials focused on protecting the right of eligible voters to vote, even when their records contained mistakes. Navdeep Rinwa directed district authorities to ensure that clerical or printing errors did not become a reason to deny a ballot. This treated the faulty record as something to verify, not an automatic reason for exclusion.

Presiding officers were instructed to examine necessary documents at polling stations. If those documents showed that a person was eligible, officials were told to allow that voter to cast a ballot despite an incorrect entry. This safeguard was especially important for records affected by software translation errors or human negligence.

Rinwa also ordered an inquiry into the discrepancies after political parties complained and lists circulated on social media. Jhansi Divisional Commissioner Vimal Kumar Dubey conducted the probe and confirmed errors. District magistrates were warned that they would be held responsible if anyone was wrongly turned away for such reasons.

Graduates’ and teachers’ constituencies are special constituencies used to elect members of a state Legislative Council. Their voters come from defined graduate or teacher groups, rather than from the general electorate of an Assembly constituency. The article identifies these categories but does not provide their detailed eligibility rules.

Their representatives are members of the Legislative Council, abbreviated MLCs. They therefore belong to the state’s upper legislative chamber. Members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, or MLAs, belong to the Legislative Assembly, the state’s other chamber, and are elected through Assembly constituencies. This distinction explains why the article discusses MLC seats and separate graduate and teachers’ rolls.

The immediate election involved five graduate and six teachers’ constituencies. More than 14.81 lakh voters could vote at 2,697 polling stations across 72 districts, with 152 candidates contesting. Polling officials had to use the corrected records and documents to protect eligible voters’ access to the ballot.

Voter-list data determines how people are identified and checked at polling stations. When records move from manual preparation to digital systems, accuracy remains essential. A digital platform can speed registration, approvals, duplicate checks and publication, but it cannot automatically guarantee that every name and personal detail is correct.

The Uttar Pradesh software was designed to transliterate English names into Hindi. In some cases, it translated words instead. “Ramhit Yadav” could therefore become “Ram ne Yadav ko maara.” Officials said an editing option existed, but some errors survived into the final roll. The “B.Com” father’s-name entry appeared to involve human negligence.

Verification and correction create a safety net. Officials ordered inquiries, document checks and permission for eligible voters to cast ballots despite clerical or printing errors. Future digital roll preparation must keep human review alongside automated processing. Otherwise, a small technical mistake can affect a person’s ability to exercise the right to vote.