“No eligible voter should be left out” has become the Election Commission’s refrain during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, repeated by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and in the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s press releases. In Uttarakhand’s Gadarpur constituency, the final roll tells a different story.

According to Form 10 records published by the Uttarakhand Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), 10 Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) and the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) filed 2,742 objections to delete voters on just two dates – September 18 (763) and September 28 (1,979). Both dates fell more than a month after the claims and objections period ended on August 13, with the second batch just logged five days before the final electoral roll was published. Rule 17 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, requires objections lodged after the prescribed period to be rejected.

Electoral rules contain no provision for EROs or AEROs to file Form 7 themselves. Yet, according to this report in The Hindu, poll officials in Delhi, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand have used the route to remove voters flagged for unresolved logical discrepancies or as “unmapped.”

Gadarpur ERO Amrita Sharma has maintained that the post-deadline filings were merely procedural delays in generating the forms on the system, and insisted that hearings on the ground had already taken place. 

Yet Newslaundry met at least 15 deleted voters across Gadarpur who found out their names had been struck off only after the final roll was published. Some said they received initial notices and others said they received none, but all said they were not accorded due process before their names were struck off. They also said poll officials then told them to file a fresh Form 6.

‘There was a slight delay, but I would not call it a mistake’

Asked about the objections filed after the August 13 deadline, Sharma said: “Actually, our officers were not aware that Form 7 also had to be generated for those who were absent. They had marked these voters, but the Form 7 applications were not generated. By the time this came to our notice, the hearings had already been completed.” She clarified that these were strictly Form 7 deletions related to anomaly notices rather than suo motu proceedings under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

“There was a slight delay, but I would not call it a mistake,” she added, maintaining that voters had been given sufficient opportunity to respond. 

Former Chief Election Commissioner S Y Quraishi noted the procedural complexity of the situation. “This is a very technical matter. But if they are saying there was a delay, we should accept it as such,” adding that “the ERO has the power to delete or add names to the electoral roll, but it must be done in accordance with the law.”  

According to Form 10 records published by the CEO Uttarakhand, objections against 4,785 names were filed within the August 13 deadline, while objections against another 2,825 names were filed after it. Of these, the ERO and AEROs filed 763 on September 18 and 1,979 on September 28. Other individuals filed the remaining 83, including 27 by BJP leader Chankit Huria.

When asked about the 27 objections attributed to the BJP leader dated August 14, a day after........

© newslaundry