These voters in Pune never moved, someone changed their addresses anyway

Why in the News

A voter’s name is meant to move to another constituency only when the voter applies to shift, yet in Pune voters who never moved or applied were deleted from their home rolls. An inquiry found address changes approved without field checks, and the Pune District Election Officer (DEO) has now issued a show cause notice. The roll software still offers no way to stop such deletions.

How does a change of address work on the voter roll?

1. What Form 8 does: A voter who shifts files Form 8 in the new constituency. Its Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), who keeps the roll, verifies the documents and may send a Booth Level Officer (BLO) to check the address.
2. Automatic deletion: On approval, the Election Commission of India (ECI) software ERONET, which processes voter forms, creates a Form 7 deleting the voter from the old constituency. It works like a bank closing an old account the moment a new one opens.
3. Accept only: The old constituency’s ERO sees only an “accept” option, so a wrong approval in one place removes a voter elsewhere with no second check.
4. The takeaway: One unverified approval can silently remove a genuine voter from another constituency’s roll.

How were the irregularities flagged?

1. District warnings: From October 2024 the Pune DEO warned the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the State’s top election official, about bulk Form 8s. Many used one electricity bill with mismatched names and came from a single IP address.
2. Reject option sought: In 2025 the DEO reported that these voters had not moved and asked for a “reject” option for automatic deletions. He warned of more cases before the January 2026 local polls.
3. Complaint that forced an inquiry: A Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader’s November 2025 list alleged bulk “fraudulent deletions/ shifting of voters”. The CEO’s office ordered an inquiry the next day.
4. Voters’ accounts: Listed voters said they had neither moved nor applied. One, shifted to Pimpri, was later left off the draft roll of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), a full re-check of the roll.

What did the inquiry find, and what has changed?

1. No field checks: EROs in Pimpri, Thane and Khadakvasla admitted approving Form 8s on documents alone. The DEO cited the deadline to print rolls before the 2024 Assembly polls.
2. Scale of deletions: All but one of the listed voters were among 5,603 voters deleted through auto generated Form 7s.
3. Show cause notice: On 31 October 2026 the DEO issued the Pimpri ERO a show cause notice, asking why action should not follow.
4. Police report: The Pimpri Assistant ERO filed a police report under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against persons who filed Form 8s in bulk.
5. The ECI’s fix: The CEO calls a “reject” option infeasible, because the voter would then stay registered in two constituencies. The ECI instead made an Aadhaar based digital signature mandatory in September 2025.

Challenges

1. Deadline driven approvals: Roll printing deadlines push EROs to approve address changes without field checks.
2. Signature is not verification: A digital signature identifies the filer but does not confirm that the voter actually moved.
3. Burden on the voter: A deleted voter must notice and refile Form 6 to return.

Way Forward

1. Mandatory field check: Require BLO verification before any Form 8 that deletes a voter elsewhere.
2. Notice to the voter: Alert the voter at the old address before an automatic Form 7 takes effect.
3. Flag bulk patterns: Have ERONET flag applications sharing an IP address, mobile number or proof document.

Conclusion

Pune shows that a roll can lose genuine voters through routine approvals, without any forged deletion order. The outcome of the show cause notice and the police case will show whether anyone is held to account.

Key numbers

1. Complaint list: 58 voters, 51 of them Muslim; over 15,000 cases alleged.
2. Approvals without BLO check: Pimpri 42, Thane 10, Khadakvasla 1.
3. Police complaint: Four mobile numbers used to file 40 Form 8s.
4. The 58 voters: Three had died, 11 lived where registered, Form 6 filed for 43.

Back2Basics: Section 31, Representation of the People Act, 1950

1. What it punishes: A false written declaration made in connection with preparing or revising an electoral roll, or adding or removing an entry.
2. Penalty: Imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.
3. Why non-cognizable: Because the maximum term is one year, the offence is non-cognizable: police cannot investigate it without a magistrate’s order.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”