13k Pilibhit voter details changed, UP CEO calls it a ‘deliberate crime’

The alleged changes affected voter particulars in the 127-Pilibhit assembly constituency. The article does not identify every field that was changed. It does report that names differed from the EPIC numbers shown on the voter portal. These were described as unauthorised changes, making the issue more serious than routine record correction.

The problem emerged after complaints about discrepancies in voter lists. An inquiry found errors by comparing voter names with their EPIC numbers on the portal. The disputed records involved at least 13,150 electors. Two SDMs who also served as EROs, Mayank Goswami and Hemant Chaudhary, and outsourced operator Anil Kumar face action linked to the allegations.

UP chief electoral officer Navdeep Rinwa called the matter deliberate wrongdoing rather than negligence. The SDMs were attached to district headquarters, and the operator’s services ended immediately. A departmental probe was recommended, while a Congress functionary sought a CBI or judicial inquiry.

At least 13,150 electors’ particulars were reportedly changed without authorisation in the 127-Pilibhit assembly constituency. The figure measures affected voter records, not necessarily the number of votes cast or people proven to have benefited. The article presents it as the scale of the alleged voter-roll manipulation.

The number emerged after complaints about discrepancies prompted an inquiry. Officials found that names on the portal did not match the corresponding EPIC numbers. Those findings led to an FIR against two SDMs who were EROs and an outsourced voter-registration centre operator. The investigation therefore focused on how records were changed and who handled the relevant process.

The reported scale has immediate administrative and legal consequences. The SDMs were attached to district headquarters, and the operator’s services were terminated. A departmental probe was recommended, while Congress functionary Kumud Gangwar said he would seek a CBI or judicial probe. The final findings remain subject to investigation.

An electoral roll is the official register of voters connected to a particular constituency or polling area. It contains voter particulars used to identify registered electors. In practical terms, it helps election authorities prepare polling records and check whether a person’s details appear in the voter system.

Its importance is clear in Pilibhit. Complaints about voter-list discrepancies led to an inquiry. Officials found names that differed from the EPIC numbers shown on the portal. The issue involved at least 13,150 electors’ particulars. These checks showed how a voter roll can be examined for consistency between a person’s recorded identity and the identification number attached to it.

A reliable roll supports an orderly election and public confidence in the result. An inaccurate or deliberately altered roll can create confusion about who is registered and whether records are genuine. In this case, the chief electoral officer called the alleged changes a deliberate crime. Officials have begun departmental and criminal proceedings.

Officials described the matter as deliberate because the alleged changes were unauthorised and involved a large number of records. UP chief electoral officer Navdeep Rinwa expressly said it was not a case of error or negligence, but a crime done deliberately. That is an official assessment, while the allegations still require investigation and legal determination.

The inquiry began after complaints about voter-list discrepancies. It found names that differed from the EPIC numbers shown on the portal. The alleged changes affected at least 13,150 electors. An FIR was then lodged against SDMs and EROs Mayank Goswami and Hemant Chaudhary, along with outsourced operator Anil Kumar, under BNS Section 201 and Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act.

The response also went beyond correcting records. The district magistrate recommended a departmental probe against the SDMs. Both were attached to district headquarters to prevent influence over the inquiry, and the operator’s services were terminated immediately. A Congress functionary separately sought a CBI or judicial probe.

When a voter’s name does not match the EPIC number attached to the record, officials may struggle to confirm which identity the record represents. That can create uncertainty in the voter register and complicate checks before or during polling. The article does not report that the Pilibhit election was cancelled or invalidated, so those outcomes should not be assumed.

In Pilibhit, an inquiry found names differing from EPIC numbers on the voter portal. The finding followed complaints about discrepancies in voter lists. At least 13,150 electors’ particulars were allegedly changed without authorisation. Such mismatches can make it harder to maintain a clear connection between an elector’s recorded details and the identification number used by the system.

The immediate consequences described were investigative and administrative. An FIR was filed under BNS Section 201 and Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act. The SDMs were attached to district headquarters, and the outsourced operator lost his services. Further proceedings will determine the full impact and responsibility.

Electoral registration officers, or EROs, are responsible for maintaining voter registers and processing changes to electors’ records. District officials supervise election administration in the district, receive reports, and can recommend inquiries or other action. Voter-registration centre operators support the public-facing and data-handling work assigned to them. Exact duties can vary under election rules.

The Pilibhit case shows these roles operating together. Mayank Goswami and Hemant Chaudhary were identified as SDMs and EROs. Anil Kumar was an outsourced voter-registration centre operator. District magistrate Alok Kumar recommended a departmental probe against the SDMs after complaints triggered an inquiry. Additional DM Prasoon Dwivedi said they should be removed from Pilibhit to prevent influence.

The alleged unauthorised changes led to an FIR and immediate administrative steps. Both SDMs were attached to district headquarters, while the operator’s services were terminated. The case highlights why responsibility must be traceable across officials, supervisors, and contracted operators when voter records are altered.

The principle of one eligible voter receiving one genuine vote depends on dependable voter records. Registration systems record an elector’s particulars, while verification checks whether those details correspond to the correct identity record. EPIC numbers provide an important reference for matching records. Together, these processes help officials detect inconsistencies before they affect polling.

The Pilibhit inquiry illustrates the mechanism. Complaints led officials to compare names with EPIC numbers on the voter portal. They found mismatches and alleged unauthorised changes involving at least 13,150 electors. The case shows how record comparisons can flag possible manipulation, although the article does not establish that duplicate votes or invalid votes were actually cast.

Accountability is another safeguard. The FIR named two SDMs who were EROs and an outsourced operator. The SDMs were removed from local duties during the inquiry, and the operator’s services ended. Departmental, criminal, or judicial investigations can clarify what happened and strengthen trust in future voter-list checks.