In Uttarakhand’s Jhabrera constituency, 35 people listed as applicants in 1,657 objections to the draft electoral roll say they never filed them and that their identities were misused. Most of the voters targeted were Muslim. 

In affidavits submitted to the Haridwar district administration on August 18 and 19, each of the 35 said an “unknown person” used their name, EPIC number and a forged signature to file Form 7 applications – which are requests seeking the deletion of voters. 

Curiously, 31 of these 35 people are the BJP’s BLA-2s. A booth-level agent-2 is a grassroots representative appointed by a party for a specific polling station, unlike the booth-level agent-1 that is chosen for the entire constituency, to work alongside booth level officers appointed by the Election Commission in the revision of rolls. The BJP has 151 BLA-2s in Jhabrera, led by BLA-1 Sushil Tyagi. Tyagi refused to comment on the episode, saying “it’s an old matter”. 

The Jhabrera withdrawals mark another pattern in the state’s ongoing special intensive revision. An earlier Newslaundry investigation into the highest-volume Form 7 applicants across Uttarakhand found that most of the names they sought to strike off were Muslim voters. 

The applications had come in during the claims and objections round, which closed on August 13. A notice period runs until September 11, and the final roll is due on September 15. The Election Commission had published the draft roll on July 14 with 71.3 lakh names, down from 79.6 lakh.

Who filed these applications, then? Polling officials are not seeking any investigation into the matter. In fact, they say the onus is on those in whose names the applications were filed.

Reached for comment, Jhabrera ERO Devendra Singh Negi told Newslaundry that those who had initially filed objections had subsequently submitted affidavits seeking to withdraw them. “Since they have sought to withdraw their objections, the objections filed by them have been cancelled. The names of the voters against whom these objections were filed will not be deleted,” Negi said.

Asked whether the election authorities had ordered an inquiry into the allegation that names and EPIC details had been misused, Negi said the onus lay with the complainants. “If they believe that their names have been misused, they should file an FIR. The police will investigate the matter. The Election Commission will not order any investigation,” he said.

Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa took a different view. Such cases, he said, should prompt an inquiry by the election authorities themselves. “If it is found on inquiry that the objections were filed fraudulently, the objections should be deemed to have been not filed and a criminal complaint for fraud should be lodged with the police for further investigation,” Lavasa said.

Jhabrera is a reserved seat for Scheduled Castes where Muslims form nearly 32 percent of the electorate. The Congress candidate defeated the BJP with a margin of over 8,000 votes in the last assembly election.

What the affidavits say in Jhabrera

According to Form 10 records from the election department, 4,099 Form 7 objections were filed in Jhabrera. Of these, 1,657 – nearly 40 percent – were filed in the names of just 35 individuals, including 31 BJP BLA-2s. Nearly all the objections cited “absent”, “already shifted” or “absent/permanently shifted” as the grounds for deletion.

Among the BJP BLA-2s who have withdrawn their applications is Mangeram Sirohi, a 56-year-old resident of the Nagla Kubda booth in Jhabrera. Addressing the affidavit to the ERO of Jhabrera, Sirohi said that his name, EPIC number and signature had been misused to file Form 7 applications. He also stated that he would not be able to appear at any hearing held in connection with these objections, as he had not filed them.

Speaking to Newslaundry, he said he came to know about the objections only after he received a call from the BLO. “The BLO called me and told me that I had filed an objection. That is when I came to know about it. I told the BLO that I had not filed any Form 7 or objected to anyone’s name,” he said.

“I don’t even know these people. Why would I file an objection against someone I don’t know? If I knew them, then maybe I could object. After getting the call from the BLO, I submitted an affidavit denying that I had filed any objections.”

Sirohi said he had no idea who had used his EPIC number and signature. “But whoever has done this must be someone close to me, someone who knows this kind of information,” he said.

Asked whether he would file a complaint over the alleged misuse of his identity, Sirohi said he would not. “I have submitted an affidavit,” he said.

Among the BLA-2s is Nakali Ram, a 75-year-old local resident whose application objected to 31 names. 

Nakali Ram told Newslaundry, “I never submitted any application to delete anyone's name from the voter list. I live in Bistipur, while the people whose names were objected to belong to the villages of Harjoli and Akbarpur, under Booth No. 7 and I have no connection with them. I came to know about this only when the affected people called my elder son. At the time, I was bedridden and unwell at home. I had originally shared my ID because they forwarded my name as a BLA-2, but it was misused without my knowledge. Later, the local pradhan got an affidavit prepared at the tehsil stating that my documents had been used fraudulently, and I signed it. I stand with the truth. Given my age and failing eyesight, I will now be stepping down from this responsibility.”

Newslaundry asked Roorkee BJP district president Dr Madhu Singh why BJP BLA-2s, who had filed objections against voters’ names, were now submitting affidavits denying or withdrawing those objections. “They may have felt threatened, which is why they submitted the affidavits,” she said.

Asked why they would deny the objections they had earlier filed, Singh said, “I have no idea about that. It may be that some people have done this.”

Then there are others among the 35, such as Husain Ahmad, a 47-year-old resident of the Harzoli Jhojha booth. Ahmad was recorded as having filed objections against 36 names through Form 7. However, on August 18, he submitted an affidavit stating that his name, EPIC number and signature had been misused to file the Form 7 applications.

When Newslaundry contacted Ahmad, he said that people came to him asking why he had objected to their names in the voter list. “That is when I came to know about the Form 7 applications. I did not receive any notice from the Election Commission,” he said.

On August 18, Ahmad submitted an affidavit stating that he had not objected to anyone’s name. “I am not associated with any political party. I was born here in the Jhabrera constituency and I have no idea who has used my name. However, I received a message from the SDM office asking me to appear on September 3,” he said.

Ashok Panwar, a resident of the Kotwal Alampur booth, is recorded as having filed 194 Form 7 applications. In his affidavit to the Haridwar District Election Officer on August 18, he said he had not objected to any voter’s name and that his EPIC number and a forged signature had been used.

Mukarram, from the Sitalpur booth in the same constituency, is shown as having objected to 109 names. He too has filed an affidavit saying he submitted no Form 7 applications and that his EPIC number and signature were misused.

Deepak Kumar is recorded against 121 names. Shubham Chaudhary and Rajeev Tyagi are recorded against 118 each, and Sagar Kumar against 108. All have filed affidavits saying they neither filled nor submitted the forms.

Sixty applications were filed in the name of a man called Momin, all of them shown on the chief electoral officer’s website as submitted on August 11. On August 19, Momin filed an affidavit: “I have not filed any objection against the vote of any voter through Form-7. An unknown person has fraudulently used my name, EPIC ID and forged signature to file false objections through the said Form-7.”

Momin’s affidavit added that he has no connection whatsoever with the objections and will not appear at any hearing on them. He asked that they be cancelled or rejected immediately so the voters concerned are not harassed and their voting rights are not affected.

The 36th applicant’s ‘mistake’ and an MLA part of same pattern

The 36th high-volume applicant in Jhabrera took a different route. Ankit Kumar, who objected to 164 names, mostly from Booth No. 82 in Ibrahim Pur Deh, acknowledged in his affidavit that he had filed the applications and said he had done so by “inadvertent mistake”. The voters on his list, he said, were valid residents of the area and he had no objection to their names remaining on the roll. He asked that all his objections be cancelled with immediate effect, said he would not appear at any hearing, and stated that he was filing the affidavit voluntarily and without pressure, coercion or inducement.

Among the 164 was 36-year-old Dr Shahadat, along with three other members of his family. “When I found out that objections had been filed against my name and the names of other members of my family, we contacted the person who had filed the objections. He told us that it had been a mistake on his part. He subsequently submitted an affidavit informing the Election Commission about the mistake. We have not received any notice from the Election Commission so far,” he told Newslaundry.

Mursad Ali, 40, was among those named by Ankit Kumar. “The person who filed the objection himself submitted an affidavit saying that it was a mistake. We then contacted the BLO and the tehsildar who is overseeing the SIR process. They told us that since the person who filed the objection has withdrawn it himself, the objection stands cancelled…we haven’t received any notice so far,” he said.

Ankit Kumar could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, in Haridwar’s Piran Kaliyar seat, a sitting MLA found himself on a deletion list. Congress MLA from Piran Kaliyar, Furkan Ahmad, was named in a Form 7 application filed in the name of one Mohd Furkan, with the reason given as “absent or permanently shifted". When the MLA contacted him, the applicant said he had filed no such objection.

Furkan Ahmad said he learnt of the objection through Form 10. “I did not receive any notice from the Election Commission,” he told Newslaundry. 

Mohd Furkan later filed an affidavit: “Someone else has submitted an objection in my name in SIR, which is not to my knowledge. I have not raised any objection regarding Mr Furkan Ahmad or any other person becoming a voter in the Piran Kaliyar assembly constituency area. If any person has filed any objection using my name, it is null and void.”

Such affidavits land in a familiar pattern. Rahul Gandhi last year alleged that 6,018 voters in Karnataka's Aland assembly constituency were targeted through Form 7 applications filed as part of a coordinated operation. The Karnataka CID, he said, wrote 18 letters to the EC seeking details of a case in which someone tried to delete more than 6,000 voters in Aland through online forms.

The Hindu had reported earlier that in February 2023, Congress candidate B R Patil complained to the EC that applications to delete voters were being filed in his constituency without the voters’ knowledge. The case surfaced when a booth level officer received a form seeking the deletion of her brother's vote, filed in the name of another voter from the same village who was allegedly unaware of it.

In Delhi, ahead of the 2025 assembly elections, the Aam Aadmi Party alleged bulk deletion applications in the New Delhi constituency. At hearings in January, 11 people listed as objectors denied filing the applications in their names; the party alleged their identities had been misused.

What the rules say about Jhabrera

It is not clear how many of the voters named in the objections filed by 35 applicants in Jhabrera were actually served notices before the affidavits came in.

The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, prescribes a fixed sequence once a Form 7 objection is filed. Under Rule 19(1)(b)(ii), where the objection is not summarily disposed of, the Electoral Registration Officer must issue a notice to the objector in Form 13 and a separate notice to the voter whose name has been challenged in Form 14, each specifying the date, time and place of the hearing. 

Rule 20 then requires the ERO to hold a summary inquiry and record a decision; both parties are entitled to appear and be heard, and the ERO has the discretion to require either to appear in person or to give evidence on oath. 

The EC’s 2023 manual on electoral rolls adds, at Point 11.3.6(iii), that an ERO may take up claims and objections only after seven clear days have passed since the list was published on the CEO’s website and on the notice boards of the ERO and the polling station, and only after a personal notice has been served on the voter proposed for deletion, except in death cases. 

The rules are not clear about what happens to cases like Jhabrera, nothing that addresses a purported objector later claiming his identity details were misused. Though there is clarity on wilful submission of false information: a note at the foot of form 7 says that anyone who makes a statement or declaration “which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true” is punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

However, Khatima ERO Tushar Saini said that when an objector voluntarily files an affidavit withdrawing a Form 7 objection, the objection becomes “null and void”. On objectors who do not appear at hearings, he said: “It is the onus of the objector to prove the objection against the name they have challenged.”

But going by hearings in other assembly constituencies in Haridwar, that doesn’t seem to be the case as many objectors are absent from proceedings before polling officials.

Hearings without objectors

In Manglaur assembly in Haridwar, Masroor wrote to the District Election Officer asking for details of an objection filed against his name by a person called Shubham. He was summoned to a hearing at the Roorkee tehsil premises at 11 am on August 17. He said he was taken aback by the notice, having never heard of anyone named Shubham, but went anyway, to find the tehsil office packed with more than 200 people. When his turn came, Shubham was not there. The same happened to two of his brothers. More than 50 people at his booth have received similar objections from people none of them know, Masroor said, and the objectors are never present when voters arrive with their documents. 

Newslaundry has seen the Form 13 and Form 14 notices issued by the Manglaur ERO to both Shubham and Masroor; only Masroor appeared. Shubham could not be reached for comment.

The pattern repeated in Haridwar’s Bajpur assembly. More than 270 people were called for Form 7 hearings on Tuesday. According to Congress leader and Nagar Panchayat chairman Rizwan, around 270 voters turned up and not a single objector did. Rizwan said his wife’s name had been objected to, along with those of several councillors. “We have submitted our documents again and presented our case. The ERO has assured us that the matter will be investigated,” he said.

Shamshad Bee, a BJP councillor in Bajpur, was also named. “We don’t know who objected to my wife’s name. But we have submitted our documents and presented our case before the ERO,” her husband Parwej Alam told Newslaundry. Form 10 records on the CEO website show the objection against her was filed in the name of one Lekhraj Singh. Singh could not be reached for comment.

Uttarakhand BJP spokesperson Vinod Chamoli said objections were part of the routine electoral process, and that even established public figures had been asked to submit documents in response to electoral roll notices. The party, he said, did not operate on a policy of communal exclusion.

Phone calls to Haridwar District Electoral Officer Mayur Dixit remained unanswered. Newslaundry has sent questions to him and the Uttarakhand CEO. This report will be updated if a response is received.

Your support keeps news free. Get a 6-month subscription at Rs 1947. Or gift it to your friends or relatives.