Voter's name appears 11 times in Azamgarh rolls, ECI orders action against 9 officials in UP

The investigation uncovered a serious voter-roll error in Azamgarh. Eleven entries carried the name Vikas Yadav, but they were linked to 11 different people living in various villages within the constituency. The entries nevertheless showed the same identifying details.

The matching information included each person’s father’s name, address and date of birth. The investigation first found 13 apparently identical entries, but two were later deleted. The remaining 11 were confirmed as different individuals with the same name.

The district election officer arranged for 10 people to submit Form 8 applications to correct their records. The actual Vikas Yadav was excluded from that process. The Election Commission treated the mismatch as a serious lapse and ordered action against nine officials responsible for preparing or supervising the rolls.

An electoral roll is the list of voters maintained for an electoral constituency. It records the people whose names are entered for voting purposes. In this case, the relevant list was for Uttar Pradesh’s Azamgarh Assembly constituency.

Each entry should correctly identify one person through details such as name, father’s name, address and date of birth. The investigation found that 11 different Vikas Yadavs had identical details in the rolls. That made the records difficult to distinguish and showed that the list had not been prepared or checked properly.

Accurate rolls matter because officials must know which voter each entry represents. The Election Commission called the Azamgarh problem a serious lapse and ordered action against nine officials. It also ordered a review of electoral rolls across all 10 Assembly constituencies in the district.

The investigation confirmed the outcome, but the article does not identify the exact mechanism that produced it. Eleven different people named Vikas Yadav lived in various villages across the constituency, yet their voter-list records contained identical fathers’ names, addresses and dates of birth.

The report describes this as an error and a serious lapse by officials responsible for preparing and supervising electoral rolls. It does not say whether the matching information came from copying, incorrect data entry, or another specific process. Any precise explanation would therefore go beyond the stated facts.

What is clear is that the records were not properly distinguished before the issue surfaced. The district election officer corrected 10 entries through Form 8 applications, while excluding the actual Vikas Yadav. The Election Commission ordered disciplinary action and a wider review of Azamgarh’s rolls.

Form 8 is the form used to request correction of details in an existing electoral roll. It is meant to amend information already recorded for a voter, rather than create an entirely new entry. The article identifies it specifically as the correction form used in this case.

After the investigation, the district election officer arranged for 10 Vikas Yadavs to fill out Form 8. Their records contained incorrect matching details, including fathers’ names, addresses and dates of birth. The actual Vikas Yadav was excluded from the correction process.

This action was intended to separate the records of the 11 different people and correct their details. The case still raised concerns about the earlier failure to identify the problem. The Election Commission ordered proceedings against senior election officials and notices seeking termination for six staff members involved in voter-list duties.

The officials named in the action were the then electoral registration officer, two assistant electoral registration officers, five booth-level officers and a computer assistant. Together, they were responsible for preparing, checking or supervising the electoral rolls in the constituency.

The Commission ordered charge sheets against the then ERO and the two AEROs. These would begin departmental proceedings over negligence and inadequate supervision. It also instructed officials to remove the five BLOs and the computer assistant from voter-list duties.

Notices were ordered for termination of the services of those six staff members. The action was taken under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Commission described the incident as a serious lapse and said further action, including a possible FIR, could be considered after the investigation.

The Election Commission expanded its response beyond the affected entries in one constituency. It directed the Azamgarh district election officer to investigate the electoral rolls of every Assembly constituency in the district.

The review covers all 10 Assembly constituencies in Azamgarh. The order followed findings that 11 different people named Vikas Yadav had identical personal details in the rolls of the Azamgarh Assembly constituency. The district election officer had already arranged corrections for 10 entries through Form 8.

The officer must submit a detailed report to the Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer’s office within a week. This wider check is intended to determine whether similar problems exist elsewhere in the district. The article also says the Commission may consider ordering an FIR against responsible officials after the investigation is complete.

Accurate voter rolls are important because each entry should correspond clearly to one eligible voter. When different people appear with identical identifying details, the records become unreliable. That can make it harder for election officials to distinguish voters and protect the integrity of the voting process.

The Azamgarh case illustrates the risk. Eleven different people named Vikas Yadav were recorded with identical fathers’ names, addresses and dates of birth. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav raised the issue publicly, prompting the Election Commission to order an investigation and action against nine officials.

The article does not report that anyone voted more than once or that an election result changed. It does show that such errors can damage public confidence and trigger scrutiny. The Commission ordered a review of all 10 Assembly constituencies, while a possible FIR remains under consideration.