A BJP worker in Uttarakhand objected. Voters in Kichha who never knew him are off the roll

This is part 2 of Newslaundry’s investigation into voter deletions in Kichha, Uttarakhand. A BJP booth-level agent filed Form 7 objections that he said were accepted on ECI’s directions. Here, we speak to voters whose names are missing from the final roll.

In Sirauli Kalan, a Muslim-dominated urban locality in the Kichha assembly constituency in Uttarakhand, Newslaundry met Kulsum, a 25-year-old mother of two, against whom Rajesh Tiwari, a BJP booth-level agent (BLA), filed a Form 7 objection and whose name was subsequently deleted from the final voter list. She didn’t even know her name had been deleted from the voter list until we met her. 

Against her name, Tiwari's objection was “Already Enrolled” (in another state as a voter). But the notice she got from the local electoral registration officer (ERO) office stated a different reason. The notice says, “The age gap between you and your parents is more than 50 years, whose details were used to link you to the voter list prepared during the previous SIR, it appears that this has occurred due to incorrect mapping.” 

After receiving the notice in August, Kulsum submitted her Aadhaar card, a copy of the family register certificate, ration card and details from the 2002-03 voter list. “After submitting these documents, the official told me, ‘Now your name will be corrected in the voter list,’ but my name was deleted anyway,” she said. 

Asif, a 34-year-old resident of Kichha, found his name in the draft electoral roll, but it was missing from the final voter list. The Form 7 objection filed by Tiwari against Asif’s name stated that he was “already enrolled”.

Asif’s brother, Arif, told Newslaundry, “We received a notice from the ERO, so we submitted our documents. Still, our name is missing from the electoral roll,” he said.

The reason stated in the notice, however, was different from the one in Tiwari’s objection. It said Asif’s details did not match the 2002-03 voter list and asked him to appear before the ERO to present his case. The family said they submitted their documents in response.

The final voter list also omitted the names of three members of the same family: 33-year-old Sahid, his father Mohammad Salim (70), and his mother Kamar Jahan (65). All three were registered at booth number 134 in Kichha. Tiwari was the objector here too.

Sahid and his father, Salim, run a small restaurant in Sirauli Kalan. Salim was born in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, but moved to Kichha with his family 35-40 years ago, and says that his name had been deleted from the Pilibhit voter list long ago because he had moved away.  

All three received notices from the ERO’s office stating that their details did not match the 2002-03 voter list. After receiving the notices, Sahid submitted all necessary documents, including the ration cards, Aadhaar cards, a copy of the family register certificate, and details from the 2002-03 voter list. “We submitted all our documents at a camp organised by the local authorities,” Sahid said. 

Kamar Jahan said, “We are uneducated. We do not know what they (BLO) write in their documents. We gave them all the documents they asked for.”

When we showed Sahid the final voter list, he said, “Only when you came here did I find out that our names had been deleted. We have always voted from here.” When we told Salim that Tiwari had filed objections against their names, he said the family did not know him, and he did not know them either.

“This is injustice. We have been living here all these years. How would Rajesh Tiwari know whether we live here? All our documents are from here, and we have been voting for so many years. Were we casting fake votes all this time?” asked Salim.

“They are doing whatever they want. They keep the names of those they want and delete the names of those they don't want.”

Another resident, 55-year-old Mohammad Rahees, also found his name missing from the final voter list. His family has lived in the area for 30 years, and while eight of the nine members of his household appeared on the final roll, Rahees’s name was deleted. His son, Mohammad Naseem, said the family had submitted his father’s documents twice, yet his name was still removed.  

Naseem said, “They have kept us tangled up in paperwork. This process is completely wrong. We stand in queues from the morning to submit documents, and it is causing us a lot of trouble. First, we submit the documents, and then a notice arrives. Are we supposed to keep running around with paperwork?” 

Another person affected by objections filed by Tiwari is 26-year-old Farman, who was registered at booth number 128 in Kichha. Tiwari’s objection against him stated he was “already enrolled”, but Farman was born in Kichha and says he voted in both the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

Farman told Newslaundry that he learnt of the deletion on October 9, after his younger brother informed him. He claimed that he received neither a notice from the ERO nor a call from the Booth Level Officer (BLO), and that his own call to the BLO went unanswered. In August, he said, many people he knew received notices, but he did not. 

“If you are deleting someone’s name, at least inform them so that they can present their case,” he said. 

His father, Aslam, said that his son was the only member of the family whose name had been deleted, though all of them had submitted the required documents. “Why was his name deleted? Who deleted it?” he asked.

Another voter, Nisha, found her name missing from the final roll after Tiwari objected. She is registered as a voter at booth number 96 in Kichha.

Nisha said the notice she received from the ERO stated that her father’s name had been incorrectly mapped and asked her to resubmit the documents. She said she submitted all the required documents. She was born in Kichha, still lives at the same address, and has voted in both the last Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. 

“I have not enrolled anywhere else. I have only one voter ID,” she said. Like several other voters Tiwari targeted, she did not know him. 

At the same booth number 96, three of five members of a family were also missing from the final voter list: Sana, Aamir and Eram. Tiwari had filed Form 7 objections against Sana and Aamir, but the notices to all three said, “The age difference between you and your grandfather or mother is less than 40 years.”

Maseem, a 51-year-old mother of three, said she had submitted all the required documents. “I even stood in a queue for the whole day to get the family register certificate made. After that, I submitted all the documents at the camp organised by the local authorities,” she said.

On October 17, the day we visited, the BLO told her that her children’s names had been deleted from the final voter list, and that she had to submit all the documents afresh.

“Why has someone objected to my children’s names? We do not even know who Rajesh Tiwari is,” she said.

Asked about the deletions of names Tiwari had objected to, ERO Gaurav Pandey said, “Whatever process was followed would have been in accordance with the rules.”

Documents submitted, but still off the voter roll

Not all deletions in Kichha trace back to Tiwari’s objections. Hukumat Shah, a 57-year-old resident, was removed from the final roll even though no Form 7 was filed against her. Five other members of her family are also missing from the list. 

“We gave them all the documents in response to the notice we received and even provided details from the 2002-2003 voter list in the form, but they still cut my name and my family members’ names,” she said.

The same happened to 72-year-old Ismail and his family. Five of its six members, including his children Rizwan, Imran, Ujma, and Heena, were deleted. Only his wife, Naeem, remains on the final roll. Ismail said that he and his children were all born in the same house where they continue to live.

He said the family received a notice and submitted all required documents, not once but twice, and their names were still deleted. “On October 12, the BLO told me that my name and those of my family members had been deleted from the voter list. He then asked me to apply afresh through Form 6,” he said.

“What else can we do? If they keep asking us to submit the documents, we have to do it. At 72, I am running around getting documents made and submitting them. I have been voting for so many years and never faced any problems. Now, I have to go through all this.”

Naeem said the family had submitted details from the 2002-03 voter list and everything else asked of them. “We do not know why our family’s names were deleted,” she said.

Appealing to the Election Commission, Ismail said, “Why is this happening to us? We are facing so much trouble. Please get our names added back to the voter list.”

Told to apply afresh, as first-time voters   

Several people whose names were deleted were told to apply afresh through Form 6, the application meant for people enrolling for the first time.                    

In Kuraiya village, at booth number 12, the names of Arif and his sister, Shamim, were both deleted from the voter list. Tiwari had filed objections against both of them. 

“There are five voters in our family, but two of our names have been deleted,” Arif told Newslaundry. He said he had received a notice stating that the ERO had raised an objection to his name. After receiving the notice, he submitted all the required documents, but his name was still deleted. “We do not understand what we should do. We are just standing in queues,” he said.

On October 10, the BLO asked them to submit their documents again to have their names added back. Arif showed Newslaundry the OTP and reference message he received from the Election Commission after filling out a fresh Form 6. The message said the application was for first-time voter registration. 

The family of Sana, Aamir and Eram at booth number 96, whom we met earlier, was also asked to reapply through Form 6 to get their names back on the roll.

As reported earlier by Newslaundry, the ECI offered Form 6 as a recourse to voters dropped from the rolls during the SIR exercise, though the form requires applicants to declare that they are enrolling for the first time. Petitioners in the Supreme Court have argued that this exposes applicants to Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which penalises false declarations with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both. They have also argued that the process treats existing electors as new ones without restoring the earlier enrolment.

We have emailed questions to the Kichha ERO, the Uttarakhand CEO, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Election Commissioners and the ECI. They cover the deletions described in this report and why deleted voters are being asked to apply again through Form 6. We will update this report if we receive a response.

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.