U'khand polls: 13 per cent less polling in Dehradun despite 5 lakh more voters

Even as voters in Dehradun faced considerable difficulties in locating their polling booths and finding their names in the electoral rolls, complaints of minors being included in the list, presumably to swell numbers and prevent suspicion, have come in from Pauri. Eleven-year-old Kabir Ansari, for instance, a student of Class IV, and his nine-year-old sister found their names in the electoral rolls from which adult members of the family were missing. Kabir’s age was shown as 29.

As reported yesterday, former Uttarakhand chief minister Harish Rawat found his name missing at the booth where he has been casting his vote since 2009. His staff were informed at 6.30 pm, once polling was over, that the former CM’s name was registered in a different booth and ward. He had been kept in the dark about the change, contrary to Election Commission rules and standard operating procedures.

Reports in fact suggest that even some employees of the Dehradun Municipal Corporation could not exercise their franchise because their names were missing.

Curiously, the final voters’ list was released just three days before polling on 23 January, claimed Congress leader Gurdeep Singh Sappal on X. The voters’ list was first released on 16 August 2024, with 8.03 lakh registered voters in Dehradun. Booth-level camps were held in the first week of December to enable voters to check and add their names. The final voters’ list on 20 January, however, had 7.71 lakh names, which meant a staggering 34,000 voters were missing.

Thousands of voters were shocked at the deletion because not only had they been living at the same address but had also voted in the last municipal election, assembly election and even the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

Since the Lok Sabha election from April-June 2024, the number of new voters in Uttarakhand has increased by 11 per cent. This is another reason to suspect foul play and call for an independent audit. For the record, the number of registered voters in Dehradun increased by 5 lakh since 2018 but the city registered a lower polling percentage in 2025 than in 2018, when the last municipal election was held.

The polling percentage in 2018 was 68.78 per cent but this time, the figure is just 55 per cent. The lower percentage is significant in the context of growing voter numbers and considerable resentment among people over poor civic governance.

With Saturday, 25 January set aside for counting, some quarters are expecting Nainital High Court to intervene and order a stay until a full inquiry reveals the extent of the electoral fraud if any. What is more likely is that the high court will refuse to intervene in the domain of the Election Commission and ask the aggrieved parties to approach it after the results are declared.

However, an inquiry by civil society groups appears to be in order.

What the rules say are the following:

1. Anyone can fill Form 7 and request the Election Commission to delete the name of a voter from the final list. The EC keeps a record of such requests, so any false information can easily be verified once a complaint is received regarding potential unlawful deletion

2. When the electoral registration officer (ERO) receives Form 7 for removal of a voter’s name, they are required to send a notice to the voter and give them seven days to respond

3. The ERO also has the right to remove someone's name even without Form 7, if a name features in multiple voter lists. But in that case, the ERO must sent a notice through AD/speed post and set aside 15 days for a reply

4. If the voter does not respond by the end of the notice period, the block level officer (BLO) of the Election Commission goes to the voter's address and personally checks if the person actually lives at that address

5. If a voter shifts residence, then anyone can inform the Election Commission by filling Form 8. The deadline for filing Form 8 is ten days before the end of nominations

6. If Form 8 is filled at the last minute, the name of the voter should remain at both the new and old addresses. Such names are separately maintained in an ASD list. There are standing instructions to polling officers that such voters be allowed to vote on the basis of the latest address proof. (The name will be removed from the old address’ voter list only once the election process is complete)

If the ERO failed to give prior notice and if the BLO didn’t carry out physical verification, how would voters know that their names had been deleted? Will the responsibility be fixed and officials found guilty of dereliction of duty ever be punished?