EC orders FIRs against 2 officials over Pilibhit voter roll irregularities

The Election Commission took disciplinary and legal action against two Electoral Registration Officers linked to Pilibhit Assembly constituency. It ordered their immediate suspension after examining a report from Uttar Pradesh’s chief electoral officer. The action matters because electoral officers handle changes to voter records, so alleged irregularities can affect confidence in the electoral roll.

The officers were Mayank Goswami and Hemant Chaudhary. The Commission ordered that their chargesheets be submitted for further review. It also directed the chief electoral officer to add Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 198 to FIRs against the officers and computer operator Anil Kumar.

The officers cannot be reinstated without the Commission’s prior approval. The Commission also ordered a report within one week on scrutiny of Pilibhit’s electoral rolls. It asked Uttar Pradesh to re-examine additions, deletions and modifications made through Forms 6, 7 and 8.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal record made by police when information about a suspected criminal offence is received. It begins the police investigation process. In this case, the Election Commission ordered FIRs because it found alleged irregularities in the handling of electoral-roll applications.

The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer reported that a computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 correction applications between May 31 and August 29. However, the office had no physical forms or supporting documents for those entries. The Commission directed that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 198 be added to the FIRs.

The FIRs were to cover Mayank Goswami, Hemant Chaudhary and computer operator Anil Kumar. The Commission also told the chief electoral officer to pursue their cases rigorously in court. This combines administrative suspension with a formal criminal-law process.

The reported figure is 13,779 Form 8 applications. These applications were entered as requests for corrections to electoral-roll information. The unusual feature was not simply the volume, but the absence of the paperwork normally supporting such entries.

According to the Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer, a computer assistant entered the applications between May 31 and August 29. Officials found no physical forms or supporting documents available in the office. The computer operator identified in the Commission’s direction was Anil Kumar.

The figure triggered disciplinary and legal action. The Election Commission ordered the suspension of two Electoral Registration Officers and directed FIRs against them and the operator. It also sought scrutiny of Pilibhit’s rolls and a wider re-examination of voter-data additions, deletions and modifications across Uttar Pradesh.

Electoral Registration Officers, or EROs, are officials responsible for maintaining electoral rolls for a defined constituency. Their core work includes examining applications, verifying relevant information and deciding whether voter records should be added, deleted or corrected. This role matters because the roll determines whose names are available for voting.

In the Pilibhit case, the Commission focused on entries made through Forms 6, 7 and 8. The chief electoral officer reported that 13,779 Form 8 correction applications had been entered, but the office had no physical forms or supporting documents. The case therefore raised questions about whether the changes were properly checked.

The Commission ordered the two EROs’ suspension and required their chargesheets to be submitted for review. It also directed officials across Uttar Pradesh to re-examine electoral rolls, especially data entered for additions, deletions and modifications.

In India’s voter-registration system, Form 6 is generally used to apply for inclusion of a name in the electoral roll. Form 7 is used to object to an entry or request deletion, while Form 8 is used to request correction or updating of voter information. These forms create a documented route for changing the roll.

The article focuses on Form 8. A computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 applications between May 31 and August 29. The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer said the office could not find physical forms or supporting documents for those entries.

That missing documentation led to official action. The Election Commission ordered the suspension of two EROs and directed FIRs against them and computer operator Anil Kumar. It also instructed Uttar Pradesh officials to thoroughly re-examine data entered through Forms 6, 7 and 8.

Electoral rolls must be checked before changes are accepted. If additions, deletions or corrections are entered without verification, the list may contain inaccurate or unsupported records. That can affect whether eligible voters find their names correctly recorded and whether officials have trustworthy information.

The Pilibhit case shows the risk clearly. A computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 correction applications, yet officials found no physical forms or supporting documents. The Election Commission responded by suspending two EROs, directing FIRs and ordering scrutiny of the constituency’s rolls.

The Commission also asked every district and electoral-roll official in Uttar Pradesh to re-examine additions, deletions and modifications made through Forms 6, 7 and 8. That wider review is intended to identify questionable entries and reinforce verification. The article does not report specific voter impacts from the Pilibhit entries.

An electoral roll is foundational because representative democracy depends on a reliable record of eligible voters. Elections use that record to organize participation within constituencies. Accurate names and details help ensure that eligible people can take part and that the process is administered consistently.

The Pilibhit allegations show why recordkeeping matters. A computer assistant entered 13,779 Form 8 correction applications without physical forms or supporting documents. The Election Commission treated the issue seriously, ordering the suspension of two EROs, directing FIRs and seeking scrutiny of the constituency’s roll.

The Commission also instructed officials throughout Uttar Pradesh to re-examine additions, deletions and modifications made through Forms 6, 7 and 8. This response places verification at the center of maintaining public confidence. The article reports the review order, but does not state whether any election result was affected.