UP Chief Electoral Officer calls 10,000 voter-list changes a crime, orders probe

Pilibhit’s electoral roll contained more than 10,000 changes to voter details without the applications and documents required by procedure. The issue matters because electoral records are supposed to reflect information submitted and verified through an official process. Unauthorised changes can undermine confidence in the accuracy of the roll.

The investigation began after the Samajwadi Party complained that a voter’s name and father’s name had been changed without a Form-8 application. Officials then found similar cases and examined the entire constituency roll. They discovered that affected voters had not requested corrections or supplied documents supporting the altered details.

Navdeep Rinwa said this was “not a mistake” but a criminal act, and a case was registered. Legal action and departmental proceedings were started against those involved. The probe is also examining Form-6 and Form-7 entries and similar irregularities across Uttar Pradesh.

The Pilibhit investigation found more than 10,000 changes to voter details that lacked both the required Form-8 applications and supporting documents. This scale made the matter larger than an isolated data-entry error. It prompted the Chief Electoral Officer to order a wider examination of voter records.

The unauthorised entries were made between May 31 and August 29. The investigation first confirmed a complaint about a voter’s changed name and father’s name. Similar irregularities then appeared in two other cases, leading officials to inspect the entire electoral roll of the Assembly constituency.

Two Electoral Registration Officers and the computer operators associated with the Voter Registration Centre came within the scope of action. The employees were removed from electoral-roll duties. Legal action began under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, while departmental proceedings also followed.

Form-8 is the prescribed application used when a voter seeks a correction to information on the electoral roll. The article specifically connects it with changes such as a voter’s name, father’s name, or other details. It creates a formal record of the requested correction.

The required mechanism begins with the voter submitting a signed physical Form-8 application. Supporting documents must establish that the proposed details are accurate. A Voter Registration Centre operator can then enter the change into the online system, and an Electoral Registration Officer must approve it.

In Pilibhit, officials found that more than 10,000 changes had been entered without these applications or documents. The affected voters had not requested the corrections. Because the prescribed process was bypassed, the Chief Electoral Officer ordered legal action, departmental proceedings, and a broader review of other entries made by the same operator.

The Voter Registration Centre operators were responsible for entering voter-detail changes into the system. They were supposed to do so only after receiving genuine physical applications. Electoral Registration Officers were responsible for checking and approving those corrections.

The Pilibhit investigation held both EROs and the computer assistants working at the VRC responsible. The irregularities occurred between May 31 and August 29. The case involved more than 10,000 entries made without Form-8 applications or supporting documents, including changes that voters had not requested.

Legal action was initiated under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The employees were removed from electoral-roll duties immediately. A proposal sought termination of the VRC operator, while departmental proceedings began against the two officers at the sub-divisional magistrate level.

Changing voter names or identifying details without consent or proof can make electoral records unreliable. It can create uncertainty about whether each entry accurately represents the voter’s information. That matters because officials and voters need dependable records when checking the roll.

In Pilibhit, the investigation found that voters had neither requested the corrections nor supplied documents supporting the altered details. Officials changed names and other details through the system without the required signed physical Form-8 application. Electoral Registration Officers approved entries that lacked the prescribed basis.

The article does not say that the changes affected who won or lost an election. Navdeep Rinwa specifically said the investigation was concerned with whether officials performed their duties properly and committed illegal acts. The Commission has ordered wider checks, including Form-6 and Form-7 entries, so similar problems can be identified and addressed.

The confirmed Pilibhit investigation concerned changes to voter details made without Form-8 applications or supporting documents. More than 10,000 entries were found in that wider enquiry. The problem was the unauthorised alteration of information, including names, without the voters’ requests or proof.

The Congress raised a separate allegation involving 13,150 voters in the Pilibhit Sadar Assembly constituency. It said these voters had identical EPIC numbers despite having different names and other records. An EPIC number is the identification number printed on a voter’s Electors Photo Identity Card, but the article does not provide further findings about that allegation.

The two matters therefore describe different record irregularities. The article confirms the Form-8-related findings and resulting action, while it reports the identical-number claim as a separate concern. It does not state whether the two issues were connected or what action followed the Congress allegation.

Electoral rolls require applications, documents, and official approval so changes have a clear and checkable basis. A signed application shows that a voter requested a correction. Supporting documents help establish that the proposed information is accurate. Approval assigns responsibility to a designated officer.

The article describes a specific sequence. VRC operators should enter changes only after receiving genuine physical Form-8 applications. Electoral Registration Officers should then approve the corrections. In Pilibhit, more than 10,000 changes bypassed the application and document requirements, and the investigation held both operators and EROs responsible.

These safeguards also make it possible to investigate failures and identify who entered or approved an unauthorised change. The employees involved were removed from electoral-roll duties, and legal and departmental action began. Uttar Pradesh has ordered checks across districts and constituencies, including examinations of Form-6 and Form-7 entries.