Ram Narayan Yadav challenges election of Nitish Mishra, the MLA from Jhanjharpur, Madhubani

In Ram Narayan Yadav vs. Nitish Mishra & Ors. (2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order upon hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel of the petitioner, wherein, the Court permitted deletion of the respondent no. 2, the Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner and respondent no. 5, the Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the CEO, Patna. The prayer was made for its deletion in view of the provision under Section 82 (a) of the the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the pre-Constitution law. 

The law was enacted on July 17, 1951 ahead of the upcoming first General Elections during November -December 1951. It was introduced in the Parliament by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the then union law minister. The Act was enacted by the provisional parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, just before the first general election.

Section 82 of Representation of the People Act reads:"Parties to the petition.—A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition—(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.]". 

Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act specifies the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to an election petition. Under this provision the returned candidate is a necessary party as a respondent and where relief for a declaration is claimed that the election petitioner, or any other candidate be duly elected, all the contesting candidates are necessary to be impleaded as respondents to the petition.

But Section 87 of the Act  provides the "Procedure before the High Court.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits...." It is evident that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is applicable, and the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(a). 

Notably, the Representation of the People Act has been amended 49 times during September 1951-August 2022. The existing provision under Section 82 was substituted by Section 45 of the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, the post-Constitution amendment with effect from August 28, 1956.  

The petitioner's counsel was permitted by the Court to substitute the affidavit because the term of the Oath Commissioner has expired. The case is listed before the court for April 27, 2026. 

No stone will be left unturned to unearth the conspiracy behind these serial and fabricated complaints…”,: Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal

Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal has issued an "Important Notice" dated December 31, 2025. It states that "two complaints have been filed with the police, against the Chief Election Commissioner and Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal" in the context of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. 

Manoj Agarwal, Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal who has been provided Y-plus category cover of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has tagged the notice to Union Home Ministry and Department of Personnel and training (DoPT) on Twittee. Agarwal wrote: “It has come to the notice of this office from various press releases that two complaints have been filed with the police, against the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.” He adds “the allegations contained therein appear to be premeditated, unsubstantiated and a crude attempt to browbeat the officers tasked with discharging statutory duties in connection with SIR 2026.”

The purpose of Special Intensive Revision is to revise the electoral list due to rapid urbanisation, high levels of migration, the addition of new eligible voters, unreported deaths, and to remove the names of foreign illegal immigrants. 

Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 21 (3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, ECI has the power to revise the electoral rolls across the country in any state without prior permission from any authority. Intensive revisions have been carried out 13 times; 1952–56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983–84, 1987–89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Prior to West Bengal and other States, similar exercise was undertaken in Bihar ahead of the recent assembly election amid lot of controversy. 

The important notice states that "No stone will be left unturned to unearth the conspiracy behind these serial and fabricated complaints..."

It not clear as to how Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal probe the “conspiracy behind” these complaints. 

Justices S. B. P. Singh, Ashok Kumar Pandey hearing Election Petitions

In exercise of powers under Section 80(A) (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Justice Sudhir Singh, the Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court has nominated Justices S. B. P. Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey to receive, try and hear the Election Petitions likely to be filed against recently held election of Bihar Legislative Assembly, 2025 under Rule 6 of the Chapter XXI-E of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916.

Many election petitions have been filed in the High Court before the expiry of the 45-day limitation period on December 29, 2025. The filing of these petitions has created uncertainty for the newly elected MLAs. Now it is for the Court to decide their fate. The result of the 2025 Bihar Assembly election was announced on November 14, 2025. 

JDU-led NDA secured 202 seats, including 89 seats won by BJP, 85 by JDU, 19 by Lok Janshakti Party Ram Vilas, 5 won by Jitan Ram Manjhi-led Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM), and 4 seats won by Upendra Kushwaha-led Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM).

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) led Grand Alliance won only 35 seats in the state assembly.

The RJD, Hindustani Awam Morcha- Secular (HAM-S) and Rashtriya Lok Janshakti Party (RLJP) have filed separate election petitions in the High Court to challenge the results of the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections.

1. Manish Yadav, the RJD candidate from Narpatganj is contesting the victory of Devyanti Yadav, the BJP MLA. A single-judge bench of Justice Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh issued notice for her reply.

2. Ganesh Kumar Maharan, the RLJP candidate from Madhubani is contesting the election of Madhav Anand, the Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM). Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey issued notice to the RLM legislator for his response. 

3. Dr, Anil Kumar, the HAM candidate from Tekari constituency had filed a petition against the victory of Ajay Kumar, the RJD MLA. 

4. Dr. Ejya Yadav, RJD’s candidate from Mohiuddin Nagar has approached the High Court to dispute the election of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the BJP MLA. 

5.   Pawan Kumar Jaiswal against Faisal Rahman from Dhaka Assembly Constituency, East Champaran. Rahman from RJD defeated Jaiswal from BJP who was the sitting MLA. Rahman got 112,727 votes. Jaiswal got 112,549 votes. The margin of victory is 178 votes. 

6.  Rakesh Kumar Singh against Rituraj Kumar in Ghosi Assembly Constituency, Jehanabad

7. Umakant Singh, the BJP candidate and former MLA of Chanpatia Assembly of West Champaran challenged the victory of Abhishek Ranjan, the current MLA from Indian National Congress on December 17, 2025. 

8.  Vidya Sagar Keshari against Manoj Biswas in Forbesganj State Assembly Constituency, Araria.

9. Satyendra Kumar against Kaushal Kishore in 173, Rajgir State Assembly Constituency, Nalanda.

10. Anand Kumar against Sandeep Saurabh in Paliganj Assembly Constituency, Patna.

11. Sunil Kumar against Sandeep Saurav in Paliganj Assembly Constituency, Patna.

12. Rakesh Paswan against Dr. Sunil Kumar in 172, Bihar Sharif State Assembly Constituency, Nalanda. 

13. Himanshu Kumar Paswan against Jitendra Kumar in 171, Asthawan State Assembly Constituency, Nalanda.

14.  Doctor Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar against Babulal Shaurya in 151, Parbatta Assembly Constituency, Khagaria.

15. Rani Kumari @ Rani Devi, the candidate of Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) has filed an election petition against the election of Subedar Das of RJD from Makhdumpur, Jehanabad.

16. Alok Ranjan against Indrajeet Prasad Gupta in 75, Saharsa Assembly Constituency, Saharsa. 

17. Ashok Kumar Singh against Satish Kumar Singh Yadav in 203, Ramgarh State Assembly Constituency, Mohania, Kaimur.

18. Sweta Suman against Sangita Kumari in 204, Mohania (Reserve) Assembly Constituency, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

19. Amod Kumar Singh against Chetan Anand in 221 Nabinagar assembly constituency, PS Nabinagar, Aurangabad. 

20. Anil Kumar against the election of Kaviat Devi, the BJP candidate from Korha assembly constituency, Katihar.

21. Pintu Paswan against Hari Narayan Singh in 177, Harnaut State Assembly Constituency, Nalanda.

22. Shukesh Kumar against Krishna Murari Sharan @ Prem Mukhiya in 175, Hilsa State Assembly Constituency, Nalanda.

23. Md. Irfan Alam against Nitesh Kumar Singh in 58-Kasba Assembly Constituency, Purnea.

24. Avadhesh Kumar Singh @ Awdhesh Kumar Singh against Nitesh Kumar Singh 58-Kasba Assembly Constituency, Purnea.

25. Dr. Ranvijay Kumar against Amrendra Kumar in 219 Goh Assembly Constituency, Aurangabad.

26. Sushil Kumar against Abhishek Anand in 141, Cheriya Bariyarpur Assembly Constituency, Begusarai. 

Under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 there is a provision to challenge the validity of any election, irregularities in counting or violation of rules through election petition. The High Court has accepted the petition.

Notably, 63 were directly impacted by the Jan Suraaj Party, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). 

Jan Suraj Party (JSP) had contested elections on 238 seats but could not win any seat but his party had a significant impact on results in several seats for both the NDA and the Mahagathbandhan (MGB). In 33 constituencies, JSP's vote share was higher than the margin of victory. Out of these 33 seats, the NDA won 18 and the MGB 13. JSP secured 3.4% of the total vote share.  Out of 238 seats, it finished second in one seat, third in 129 seats, fourth in 73 seats, fifth in 24 seats, and between the sixth and ninth position in 12 seats. Notably, 236 of its 238 candidates lost their deposits. Candidates must secure at least one-sixth of the valid votes in their constituency to retain this deposit. It got over 16.77 lakh votes out of more than 5 crore votes cast in the Assembly elections. It finished third in 129 constituencies, which is over 54% of the seats it contested. Significantly, JSP stood in second in Marhaura Assembly seat of Saran district, with 58,190 votes. The RJD won this seat with the help its alliance partners. JSP has emerged as significant player in Chanpatiya, Jokihat, Cheria-Bariarpur, Belsand, Sherghati, Kargahar, and Saharsa. In Chanpatiya, JSP's candidate, YouTuber Manish Kashyap's 37,000 votes led to defeat to the BJP candidate. The Congress' Abhishek Rajan won the seat, his election has been challenged in the High Court. 

BSP contested 181 seats, won one and finished second in another. In 20 seats, BSP polled more votes than the margin of victory. Out of these seats, 18 seats were won by the NDA and only two seats by the MGB. BSP's presence benefited NDA in 90% of the relevant seats.  

AIMIM won five seats, out of 28 seats it contested. It finished second in one seat. It impacted results in nine constituencies, where it secured more votes than the victory margin. Out of these, 67% seats were won by the NDA and 33% by the MGB. Its presence benefits NDA more.

The Left parties secured only 3 out of 33 seats they contested.  

Communist Party of India (CPI) had fielded nine candidates for Bihar Assembly Election 2025 but all of them lost but none of its candidates have filed any election petition as yet. 

In Bachhwara, its votes dwindled from 54,254 to 21,588 as the Congress candidate came second with 84,502 votes. The margin of victory for the BJP in this seat is 15,841.

Ram Ratan Singh from Teghra got 77,406 votes which is 36.4% vote share.

Suryakant Paswan from Bakhri (SC) got 81,193 votes which is 39.29% of vote share. 

Sanjay Kumar from Banka got 71,824 votes which is 37.25% of vote share. 

Notably, CPI candidates, namely, Rakesh Kumar Pandey from Harlakhi got 49,250 votes which is 26.85% of the vote share and Ram Narayan Yadav from Jhanjharpur got 53,109 votes which is 27.5% of the vote share. CPI which contested 9 seats got total 491689 votes which is 2.08765% of the total votes. 

CPI's increase in votes was 22,969 votes or 6.5% – from 3.49 lakh votes in six seats to 3.72 lakh in nine seats. In four seats, it contested against its ally Congress in friendly fights. While it contested Banka instead of Rupauli this time, the party also fielded candidates in Raja Pakar (12,990 votes), Biharsharif (2,736) and Kargahar (2,362).

CPI(M), which contested four seats like last time, increased its votes from 2.74 lakh to 3.02 lakh or a 10.51% increase. It contested Hayaghat (65,383 votes) this time instead of Matihari (60,599 in 2020). Besides Manjhi seat where its votes marginally declined, it fared well in Pipra clocking an increase of around 19,000 votes and around 5,000 votes in Bibhutipur, the only seat it won this time. So far none of it's candidates who lost have filed any election petition. 

CPI(ML)(L)) which contested 20 seats, ot a total of 559126 votes which is 2.37398 % of total votes. CPI(ML)L statistics showed that it polled 13.33 lakh votes in 19 seats five years ago while it rose to 14.25 lakh, up by 6.4%. This time, the party contested two new seats compared to last time’s seats while repeating 18 constituencies. In ten seats, it increased its votes in a range of 838 (Digha) and 19,977 (Tarari). While in Paliganj where it won, its votes increased from 67,917 to 81,105. But in Karakat, which it has retained, the votes came down to 74,157 from 82,700. In Paliganj, its sitting MLA  Sandeep Saurav has retained it. In Karakat, its sitting MLA Arun Singh  retained it. Its tally is down to 2, from 12 seats in the previous election. 

In Aurai, which it contested last time but gave to ally VIP this time, the votes for the Grand Alliance candidate rose from 42,613 to 46,879 though the candidate could not pull through this time as well.

So far CPI(ML)L's candidates who lost have not filed any election petition although the party lost Agiaon seat by just 95 votes.  In Balrampur, Mahboob Alam, the 3-time MLA lost by 1318 votes because of Sangita Devi Lok of Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) who won by 389 votes and Mohammad Adil Hasan of AIMIM who got 80070 votes. In Dumraon and Ziradei, the margins of defeat was around 3,000 votes. In Dumraon, Dr Ajit Kumar Singh was defeated by Rahul Kumar Singh of  Janata Dal (United) who won by 2105 votes.  CPI-ML lost Arwal and Ghosi seats.In Arwal, it was defeated by the BJP, and in Ghosi, it lost to the JD(U). In Ghosi, Rituraj Kumar of the JD(U) defeated CPI-ML candidate Ram Bali Yadav. In Ziradei, Bhism Pratap Singh of Janata Dal (United) won by 2626 votes defeating Amarjeet Kushwaha of CPIML. 

Notably, 15,857 votes were polled by NOTA and candidates of Jan Suraaj Party, BSP, SUCI (C) and other independent candidates in Arrah where Sanjay Singh Tiger of BJP defeated CPIML candidate Quyamuddin Ansari by 19581 votes. 

Prior to the filing of these 26 election in the High Court, a PIL was filed in the High Court contending that the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (MMR)Yojana was used to influence voters by making payments after the Model Code of Conduct (MMC( for the 2025 Assembly Elections was already in force.  The PIL alleges that the state distributed ₹ 2,500 crores in cash grants to ₹ 25 lakh women after MCC came into effect. The State of Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, the Department of Rural Development, and the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (JEEVIKA) are the respondents. The MMRY scheme was given Cabinet approval on August 29, 2025, to provide a non-refundable grant of 10,000 rupees to one woman per family for self-employment. 

The petition submitted that despite the MCC coming into force on October 6, 2025, the state continued to execute the disbursement in a “staggered manner”. The Direct Benefit Transfer timeline reveals that after MCC came into effect, fund transfers were initiated on October 17, October 24, and October 31, 2025. The timeline indicates that a disbursement was done on November 7, 2025 as well. The scheme’s guidelines arbitrarily delegated the core executive function of ground-level beneficiary verification to “non-governmental” and “non-statutory” functionaries known as “Community Mobilisers”.  The PIL had prayed for stoppage of further payments, enforcement of the MCC and a direction for the state to file a “detailed Compliance Affidavit” providing all original administrative records, including a complete list of beneficiaries sanctioned before the MCC was enforced on October 6, 2025 and a separate list of all beneficiaries who received payments after that date.

Chronology 

September 20, 2025–The Rural Development Department (RDD) issued a letter confirming a “high-profile online launch” for the first instalment transfer, scheduled for September 26, 2025, with the presence of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and Chief Minister.

September 29, 2025–JEEVIKA issued an office order scheduling a “single, massive Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) of 2500 Crore” to 25 lakh beneficiaries on October 3, 2025. 

October 6, 2025–The Election Commission of India announced the schedule for the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025, bringing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) into “immediate effect”. The MCC, Part VII, Clause (v), prohibits ministers and authorities from sanctioning “grants/payments out of discretionary funds” after elections are announced.

. 

 

Duplicate Voter ID Fraud: Discussion on "EPIC number duplication SCAM", "the BIGGEST ELECTORAL FRAUD" awaited in Parliament, Election Commission yet to probe American funding claims

The credibility of elections in India depends entirely upon the impartiality and credibility of the Election Commission of India to ensure a level playing field to the political parties and candidates. Opposition parties are being displaced link by 12-digit Aadhaar to Voter ID

On March 10, 2025, Harivansh, Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha observed: "The notices of Shri Tiruchi Siva, Shri Sandosh Kumar P, Shri Vaiko, Shri P.P. Suneer and Shri P. Wilson have demanded discussion over the concerns regarding upcoming delimitation exercise to Southern States. The notices of Shri Saket Gokhale, Shrimati Sagarika Ghose, Shri Pramod Tiwari and Shri Ajay Makan have demanded discussion over the alleged lapse of the Election Commission in issuance of multiple duplicate EPIC across the States." EPIC refers to Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers. 

Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha refused to allow discussion saying, "Members may recall the detailed rulings of Rule 267 imparted by the hon. Chairman, Rajya Sabha, on 8th December, 2022, and 19th December, 2022....The same have been reiterated by the hon. Chairman a number of times....Since these notices do not conform to the directives imparted by the hon. Chairman, the same are declined."

On March 10, 2015 Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha observed: "Questions are being raised across the country on the voter's list. In every opposition, questions are raised on the voter's list. The entire opposition is just saying that there should be a discussion on the voter's list." 

During the Zero Hour discussion in the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition pointed out that voter lists were being "twisted" across the country which undermines electoral democracy. When Om Birla, the Speaker of Lok Sabha asked him whether the government drew out the voter lists. The Leader of Opposition said that while the government may not be drawing the voter lists, questions are being raised about voter lists across the country.

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kalyan Banerjee raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "Madam, the faulty voter list is a serious concern in the country itself. Our Chief Minister first flagged the issue of numerous instances of duplicate voter cards. The explanation given by the Election Commission is clearly a breach of Rule 20 of the Election Conduct Rules itself. These things have been happening for the last few years. Earlier, it was not there. That is why there is an increase in votes. In West Bengal, the voters are coming from Gujarat and Haryana. This is not tolerable. The Election Commission all the time says that they are conducting elections in a transparent and fair manner. It is clear that there had been no transparent elections in the last few years. There had been no fair elections in the last few years, not at all. The Election Commission has not acted properly, and appropriate proceedings should be brought against the for that reason." 

On March 10, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Sougata Ray raised the issue of large-scale duplication of EPIC voter identity card numbers across states during Zero Hour mention. He informed Lok Sabha, "Sir, with your permission, I would like to raise the matter of false voter lists all over India, which has been pointed out by our Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee. In her recent speech, Ms. Mamata Banerjee showed the papers where it was seen that the same EPIC numbers had voters both in Bengal and Haryana. In Bengal, it was in the district of Murshidabad. Again, she showed voter cards which had same EPIC numbers in Bardhaman and in Haryana. This shows that all is not well in the state of Denmark. There are some serious flaws. This has been pointed out earlier with regard to Maharashtra voter list which had an inflated voter list. This was pointed out in the list of Haryana. Now, they are preparing to jump on Bengal and Assam also which have elections next year. Sir, with your permission, I demand that the total voter list should be thoroughly revised and the Election Commission should answer to the country why such mistakes have occurred in the voter list. They have informed our Party that they will let us know within three months. We shall meet on behalf of the Party. Our people will meet the newly appointed Chief Election Commissioner, who was earlier Secretary of the Cooperation Ministry under Mr. Amit Shah. We hope that he replies properly. Our agitation on this point will continue.…You know that the Election Commission is under the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. He informed the Speaker, Lok Sabha that the Election Commission is under the government. It implies that it has a role in the preparation of the voter list.  

On March 11, 2025,  All India Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Sagarika Ghose raised serious questions the following questions that Election Commission of India cannot ignore: How many duplicate Voter ID cards exist?, If there are changes in the electoral roll, why hasn’t a separate roll been published?, Why is there no action despite credible evidence of Aadhaar cards being cloned for fake voter registrations?

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Kirti Azad said, "In just three months, Maharashtra saw 40 lakh new voters added ahead of the elections. How is that even possible? EPIC numbers, meant to be unique, are now linked to multiple individuals. Even Aadhaar cards are being cloned! And now, @ECISVEEP wants 90 days to investigate. Does that mean they already know the scale of this fraud? How many fake cards exist? Who is behind this massive electoral malpractice?"

Kirti Azad referring to the Press Note dated March 7, 2025 issued by the Election Commission of India entitled "Commission to address decades long issue of duplicate EPIC numbers within next 3 months" The note reads: "Electoral Roll updation takes place under DEO & ERO with continuous public and political parties participation India’s Electoral Rolls are the biggest database of electors across the globe with over 99 crore registered electors. In addition to the continuous updation of Electoral Rolls, the Election Commission conducts Annual Special Summary Revision (SSR) exercise every year for updation of electoral rolls which happens during the period of October-December every year with publication of final rolls in the following month of January. For the poll going States/UTs, SSR is also conducted prior to the elections. For the recently concluded SSR 2025, the schedule was issued on August 7, 2024 and the final rolls were published during Jan 6-10, 2025 and the participatory and transparent process is enumerated below:
1. At every booth, a Booth Level Officer (BLO) is appointed by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) amongst the officials of the state government.
2. At every booth, political parties also have the right to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs).
3. All BLAs have the right to verify the electoral roll of the concerned booth and raise a complaint for anomaly, if any.
4. After house-to-house field verification, the concerned BLO submits the recommendations to the concerned ERO.
5. After taking into cognizance the above facts, ERO verifies the details of each elector for updation of electoral rolls.
6. The draft electoral rolls prepared are published on the website and also made available to political parties and the public.
7. Only after verification of draft Electoral rolls and settling any claims and objections received during a one month period, final rolls are published which are made available to political parties and also available polling station wise on ECI website (https://voters.eci.gov.in/download-eroll).
8. If any person has any objection, he has the option to file the first appeal to the DM/District Collector/Executive Magistrate under section 24(a) of RP Act 1950.
9. Even if the person is not satisfied with the decision of the first appellate authority, a second appeal to Chief Electoral Officer of the concerned State/UT under section 24(b) of RP Act 1950 can be filed.
For the recently concluded SSR, the relevant details as reported by CEOs of States/UTs are available at Annexure A.
As regards the issue of duplicate EPIC numbers, the Commission has already taken cognizance of the matter. Irrespective of an EPIC number, an elector who is linked to the electoral roll of a particular polling
station can cast his vote at that polling station only and nowhere else. Sample enquiry of over 100 electors reveals that electors with duplicate EPIC numbers are genuine electors. Since the allotment of EPIC series in the year 2000 to the States/UTs, some EROs did not use the correct series. The issue of allotment of duplicate numbers due to incorrect series across States/UTs could not have been detected as the States/UTs were independently managing the electoral roll databases. The Commission has now decided to resolve this long pending issue after detailed discussions within the technical teams and concerned CEOs in the next three months by ensuring a unique national EPIC number to the existing electors having a duplicate EPIC number and for future electors as well." 

On March 11, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress said:"The EPIC number duplication scam is a calculated assault on democracy. Issuing multiple voter IDs with the same number is a direct violation of electoral laws, yet  @ECISVEEP has turned a blind eye for years. Why was this massive fraud kept under wraps until Smt. @MamataOfficial exposed it? And how does ECI plan to fix it in three months when it failed to even acknowledge the issue for years? Our MPs confronted the Chief Election Commissioner today, demanding accountability. But when faced with hard questions, all they had were vague, evasive answers. The fight to protect free and fair elections is on, and we won’t back down!"

Claiming the EPIC number duplication SCAM to be the BIGGEST ELECTORAL FRAUD of our times, a 10-member delegation of All India Trinamool Congress MPs met Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner on March 11, 2025 submitted a letter demanding: Why was this buried for years until Smt. @MamataOfficial  exposed it? How can ECI "fix" it in 3 months when no action was taken for years? How many duplicate EPICs exist, and in which states?Will voters with duplicate EPICs be disenfranchised? How is Aadhaar cloning impacting voter registration and electoral rolls?" The letter is available at https://x.com/AITCofficial/status/1899463473970774255

On March 11, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC invites Party Presidents and senior leaders for interaction to further strengthen electoral processes within legal framework" The Note reads: "The Election Commission of India has invited suggestions from all National and State political parties by April 30, 2025 for any unresolved issues at the level of ERO, DEO or the CEO, as the case may be." In an individual letter issued to political parties on March 11, the Commission also envisaged an interaction with the Party Presidents and senior members of the party, at a mutually convenient time, to further strengthen electoral processes in accordance with the established law. Earlier, during an ECI conference last week, Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar had instructed CEOs, DEOs and EROs of all States/UTs to hold regular interactions with political parties, resolve any suggestions received in such meetings strictly within the legal framework already in place and submit an action taken report to the Commission by March 31, 2025. The Commission also urged political parties to proactively use this mechanism of decentralised engagement. Political parties are one of the key stakeholders amongst 28 stakeholders identified by the Commission as per the Constitution and statutory framework covering all aspects of electoral processes. The Commission in its letter to political parties also noted that Representation of the People Act 1950 & 1951; Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Instructions, Manuals and Handbooks issued by Election Commission of India from time to time (available on ECI website) have established a decentralised, robust and transparent legal framework for holding free and fair elections."

On March 12, 2025, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha, Derek O' Brien referred to "enough precedents" to demand an open discussion on the EPIC number duplication issue on the floor of Parliament next week under Rule 176 for 3 minutes if the it has not been allowed under Rule 267. He underlined that 7-8 parties are demanding it. 

Earlier, on March 3, 2025, Empowered Action Group of Leaders and Experts (EAGLE) of Indian National Congress issued a release on the subject of Election Commission's complicity in voter list manipulation. It reads: "There are some startling developments on the issue of voter list manipulation that have surfaced. The same voter id number is being used for several voters, both from the same constituency in the same state as well as from other states. This is utterly shocking. A unique voter id for every Indian voter is the fundamental requirement and premise of a clean voter list. Multiple voters having the same voter id number is  as  bizarre  as  multiple  vehicles  bearing  the  same  registration  number in  the  country. It is unheard of in any electoral democracy.Back  in  December  2024,  the  Congress  party  pointed  out  huge  irregularities  and  abnormalities  in  voter  lists  for  the  Maharashtra  2024  Vidhan  Sabha  election.  It  is  both  a  logical  and  statistical  absurdity  that  the  Election  Commission  registered  more new net voters (40 lakhs) in five months between the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections in 2024 than they did in the entire five-year period between 2019 and 2024 (32 lakhs). This  was  substantiated  through  ground  reports  in  some  constituencies  where  thousands of voters were added to the rolls from just one building or brought in from other  states.  It  was  further  shown  that  suspiciously  most  of  these  new  voters  enrolled  seem  to  have  voted  only  for  the  BJP  led  alliance  in  Maharashtra,  thereby  tilting the eventual outcome in their favour.The Hon. Leader of Opposition Shri. Rahul Gandhi raised this issue on the floor of the  Lok  Sabha  and  demanded  voter  lists  of  Maharashtra.  There  was  a  joint  press  conference  held  by  the  Opposition  alliance  parties  of  Maharashtra  on  the  same  issue.  The  Election  Commission’s  stoic  silence  has only  lent  credence  to  their complicity in voter list manipulation."

It also stated: "When confronted with proof of same voter id number used by multiple voters, the Election  Commission  initially responded  claiming  that  a  voter  id  number  may  be  the same across states, but it is unique to a particular state. Even that turned out to be a blatant lie as there are cases of the same voter id number used by several voters in the same state and in the same constituency. After this was pointed out, there has been pin drop silence.It is elementary knowledge that a person who can legally migrate to any state of the country must have a unique voter id number throughout the country. The Election Commission   cannot   feign   ignorance   or   incompetence   in   this   matter.   It   is   a   deliberate act of voter list manipulation to aid the ruling party and thwart the idea of free and fair elections.The  cover  is  now  blown.  It  is  clear  that  the  ruling  BJP  wins  or  attempts  to  win  elections by manipulating voter lists in connivance with the Election Commission. Which  is  why  the  process  of  appointment  of  the  Election  Commissioners  is  so  critical to the Narendra Modi government that it subverted a Supreme Court ruling to have a balanced committee to appoint Election Commissioners.This  is  a  grave  danger  to  the  very  idea  of  India  as  an  electoral  democracy.  This  transcends  political  parties  and  politics.  Babasaheb  Ambedkar  fought  for  the  setting  up  of  an  independent  Election  Commission  to  precisely  resist  this  urge  of  executive  interference  in  elections.  The  Congress  party  will  not  let  this  issue  fade  away and is actively working on seeking remedy through legal, political, legislative and any other means."

Earlier on March 2, 2025, Election Commission of India issued a Press Note entitled "EC clarifies that duplication in EPIC number does not imply duplicate/fake voters." It reads: The Election Commission has taken cognizance of certain social media posts and media reports flagging the issue of electors of two different states having identical EPIC numbers. In this regard, it is clarified that while EPIC numbers of some of the electors may be identical, the other details including demographic details, Assembly Constituency and polling booth are different for the electors with the same EPIC number. Irrespective of the EPIC number, any elector can cast a vote only at their designated polling station in their respective Constituency in their State/UT where they are enrolled in the electoral roll and nowhere else. The allotment of identical EPIC number/series to some electors from different States/UTs was due to a decentralized and manual mechanism being followed prior to shifting of the electoral roll database of all States/UTs to the ERONET platform. This resulted in certain State/UT CEO offices using the same EPIC alphanumeric series and leaving a scope for the possibility of duplicate EPIC numbers being allotted to electors in different Assembly Constituencies in different States/UTs. However, to allay any apprehensions, the Commission has decided to ensure allotment of unique EPIC number to registered electors. Any case of duplicate EPIC number will be rectified by allotting a unique EPIC number. The ERONET 2.0 platform will be updated to aid and assist in this process."

Responding to the Press Note of the Election Commission of India, on March 7, 2025, EAGLE of INC issued a release on the subject of duplicitous response by the Election Commission to the issue of duplicate voter- ID numbers. It reads:" The Election Commission of India {ECI} has issued a duplicitous response on the issue of same voter Ins being allotted to multiple voters. The ECI, in its response, hides behind its processes to offer a feeble explanation. Shockingly but not surprisingly, the ECI has been forced to admit that its voter lists are flawed and not trustworthy.  The Election Commission, in a letter issued on September 18th 2008 to Chief Electoral Officers of all States, had said that `voter-IDs are unique'. However, the ECI today says, the issue of duplicate voter-IDs is a "decades long issue". Which statement of the ECI should the citizens of India believe? Why should an average Indian voter today trust the Election Commission?  Further, how is it that 17 years later, ECI speaks of constituting a body to clean up this process of multiple voter-IDs? Was the ECI then all along misrepresenting to the voters of India that the 'voter-IDs were unique'? If yes, then what are the other processes which ECI has been misrepresenting to its citizens? The initial response of the Election Commission to these questions was to defend itself by stating that this could happen only across states'. But there are instances with clear evidence of many voters with the same voter-ID in the same assembly constituency in the same state. Is the ECI then lying? As the issue of duplicate voter-IDs clearly is not across different states, but rather in the same state and, in many eases, in the same constituencies. There was a categorical demand made by the Hon. Leader of Opposition, Shri Rahul Gandhi, along with other concerned political parties, for the Election Commission to provide a copy of the Maharashtra voter rolls. Why has there been a deafening silence on this? This only reaffirms what the Congress party has been asserting- voter lists under the current ECI arc dubious and flawed. The Congress Party rejects this feeble and duplicitous explanation by the ECI and reiterates its demands to come clean on the sanctity of voter lists in India." 

Having witnessed disturbing trend during the tenure of Rajiv Kumar, thE 25th Chief Election Commissioner, Indian National Congress established EAGLE, an eight-member group on February 2, 2025 to maintain an oversight over elections in India and to ensure that the Election Commission of India upholds the integrity of the electoral process. Initially, the group was set up to inquire into electoral malpractices in the Haryana and Maharashtra Assembly elections in 2024. The EAGLE committee has been set up to observe elections closely and report its findings directly to the Leader of the Opposition. The committee was tasked to investigate alleged irregularities in Maharashtra’s voter lists. The panel includes Digvijaya Singh, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Praveen Chakravarty, Pawan Khera, Gurdeep Singh Sappal, Nitin Raut and Challa Vamshi Chand Reddy besides Ajay Maken. EAGLE is tasked "to monitor the conduct of free and fair elections by the Election Commission of India."

Gyanesh Kumar assumed charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India on February 19, 2025 in pursuance of the Ministry of Law & Justice Gazette notification dated February 17, 2025 after Rajiv Kumar demitted the office of Chief Election Commissioner on February 18, 2025. Rajiv Kumar had joined ECI as Election Commissioner on September 1, 2020 and he assumed charge as the 25th Chief Election Commissioner of India on May 15, 2022. He had a tenure of 4.5 years in the Election Commission. During his tenure, he completed one full electoral cycle with conduct of elections in 31 States/UTs, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections 2022, Lok Sabha elections 2024 and Rajya Sabha renewals. The February 17 Press Note underlined: "The elections were conducted peacefully with near zero repolls and incidents of violence" with the help of 5 million polling officials. 

In his 6-page long farewell speech, Rajiv Kumar said, "During peak polling or counting hours, a wave of fake allegations and rumors begins to spread across media and social media, misleading people and creating confusion. Narratives are deliberately set to distort facts....The live reporting of hearing of the long pending cases at critical junctures, sometimes fuel distrust that the petitioner intends to create. It would be beneficial if such proceedings are scheduled with due consideration to the election period, ensuring that the electoral process remains smooth and undisturbed. This is a specific expectation of India’s esteemed constitutional Courts. I say this while recording my gratitude for the higher judiciary of the country which has consistently acted as the guardian spirit of India’s electoral process and system." He added, "The Commission, as an institution, often finds itself unfairly blamed by those unwilling to accept electoral outcomes. A pressing concern is the growing tendency to target election officials in the aftermath of electoral contests. It is perceived as a convenient scapegoat. All candidates and parties are involved in every stage of the process with utmost transparency. Having participated in each step, without raising objections or filing appeals during the process, then attempting to create doubt afterward is undesirable. Dialogue should always be the preferred approach and while the Commission reacts with sagacity, stoicism and restraint, this is a disturbing trend and should be abandoned soon."

Voter ID Card

A Voter ID Card, also known as the Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) is a photo identity card that is issued by the Election Commission of India to all individuals who are eligible to vote. It is issued under    Section 61(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951; Rule 28(2), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It serves as an identification proof when individuals cast their vote and prevents the impersonation of voters. Rule 28(1), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is relevant in this regard. The Voter ID Card contains the elector’s name, age and residence (among other particulars), and must have elector’s photograph affixed to it. It bears the signature of the Registration Officer i.e., the electoral registration officer of your constituency. This provision is under Rule 2(d), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The voter’s card is prepared in duplicate, and one copy is retained with the registration officer while the other is delivered to the voter. This is required under Rule 28(3), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, one can enroll as a voter if one is an Indian citizen, has attained the age of 18 years and is ordinarily resident of the polling area of the constituency where one wants to be enrolled. Under Section 11A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one can enroll as a voter if one is not disqualified to be enrolled as an elector. The disqualification may happen if one is convicted for an offence or one carries out corrupt practices. 

The Election Commission of India operates under the powers granted by Article 324 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is a body constitutionally empowered to conduct free and fair elections to the national, the State Legislative Assemblies, State Legislative Councils and the offices of the president and vice-president. 

The framers of the Constitution devote a special chapter to elections in Part XV of the Constitution. The draft of Article 289 of the Constitution of India, which on adoption later became the present Article 324 in Part XV of the Constitution was introduced in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly. 

American funding to increase voter turnout in India

Notably, on March 10, 2025, Deputy Chairman observed: "Ramji Lal Suman wants discussion over the statement made by the US President regarding American funding to increase voter turnout in India." This discussion was also refused. The response of the Election Commission of India with regard to the claim of the US President is awaited.

Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha and Congress MP Rahul Gan ..

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/118837613.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

High Court directs Election Commission of India to supply entire videography, CCTV footage, copy of form 17C Part I, Part II of all legislative seats

Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the officials of the Election Commission of India to supply to me the entire videography, CCTV footage and copy of form 17C Part I and Part II of all 90 seats of the Haryana Legislative Assembly Elections of 2024. In Mehmood Pracha vs. Election Commission of India and others 2024), the petitioner contended that as per the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 under  the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the only distinction cast between a candidate and any other person is that while the documents have to be supplied free of cost to a Candidate who contested the election, the documents are to be supplied to any other person subject to payment of the fee as may be so prescribed.

Notably, Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules deals with the production and inspection of election papers. Rule 93(2) reads:"Subject to such conditions and to the payment of such fee as the Election Commission may direct,—(a) all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection; and (b) copies thereof shall on application be furnished." This provision was added in December 23, 1971.

Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules reads: "While in the custody of the district election officer or, as the case may be, the returning officer—(a) the packets of unused ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto; (b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected; (c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers; (cc) the printed paper slips sealed under the provisions of rule 57C; (d) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and 3 (dd) the packets containing registers of voters in form 17-A; (e) the packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures, shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent court." The provision regarding Form 17-A was inserted on March 24, 1992 which became effective from July 17, 1992. 

Form 17C read with Rules 49S and 56C (2) deals with account of votes records. This Form was inserted in the Rules on August 14, 2013. Rule 49S reads: "Account of votes recorded.—(1) The presiding officer shall at the close of the poll prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C and enclose it in a separate cover with the words ‘Account of Votes Recorded’ superscribed thereon. (2) The presiding officer shall furnish to every polling agent present at the close of the poll a true copy of the entries made in Form 17C after obtaining a receipt from the said polling agent therefor and shall attest it as a true copy."

Rule 56C deals with counting of votes. Rule 56C (2) reads: As the votes polled by each candidate are displayed on the control unit, the returning officer shall have,—(a) the number of such votes recorded separately in respect of each candidate in Part II on Form 17C:Provided that the test vote recorded, if any, for a candidate, as per item 5 in Part I of Form 17C, shall be subtracted from the number of votes recorded for such candidate as displayed on the control unit; (b) Part II of Form 17C completed in other respects and signed by the counting supervisor and also by the candidates or their election agents or their counting agents present; and (c) corresponding entries made in a result sheet in Form 20 and the particulars so entered in the result sheet announced."

The High Court's order reads: "Taking into the consideration the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the respondents are directed to supply the copy of the requisite documents, other than the documents qua which a restriction has been imposed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, within a period of 06 weeks of submission of such an application and deposit of the requisite charges by the petitioner." The case was registered on December 5, 2024. The judgement was authored by Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj.

Writ against rejection of nomination form of candidate from Jehanabad Lok Sabha constituency is "not maintainable": Patna High Court

Relying  on the Supreme Court's pronouncement of law in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency, Patna High Court's Single Judge Bench dismissed this writ petition of Abhishek Dangi, the petitioner for the Lok Sabha Eelction-2024 from 36 (Jehanabad Constituency) "as being not maintainable". Dangi was an independent candidate. 

The High Court heard the writ application filed on May 17, 2024 which sought direction upon the concerned Respondent to accept nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner's nomination form was rejected on hyper technical ground on May 15, 2024 by the District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Jehanabad. The Polling date for the said Constituency was on June 1, 2024. The petitioner made detailed representation to the concerned Respondents namely, the Election Commission of India, the District Returning Officer (Lok Sabha Election 2024)-cum District Magistrate, Jehanabad and the  State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna on May 16, 2024 but the same was not considered. It was heard on an application seeking urgent listing of the case made by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar. 

The counsel for the Election Commission of India submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court in view of Article 329 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the similar matter, Supreme Court has held that the word ‘election’ in Article 329 (b) connotes the entire electoral process commencing with the issue of the notification calling the election and culminating in the declaration of result, and that the electoral process once started could not be interfered with at any intermediary stage by Courts. Thus, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has been excluded in regard to matters provided for an Article 329 which covers all ‘electoral matters’.

The High Court noted that there is no provision for appeal in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against order of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination paper. Nomination and scrutiny, being part of election process. 

It recalled Supreme Court's decision in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs Returning officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. [1952] S.C.R. The High Court observed that the bar created by Art 329 (b) of the Constitution is applicable to the orders of returning officer accepting or rejecting nomination papers and those orders also will have to be challenged in an election petition and not otherwise at a pre-poll stage. Article 329(b) of the Constitution lays down that "no election to either House of Parliament or to the either House of the Legislatures of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature". Similar bar is also created by Section 80 of the Act of 1951 which reads that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part”. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's order concluded that "a suit, an appeal or a writ petition challenging the acceptance or rejection of nomination paper in an election to Central or State legislature is not competent." The order was passed on May 21, 2024. 

Notably, on May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea challenging rejection of the nomination from Jehanabad constituency. A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar asked the petitioner to approach a division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination papers. The court suggested that he can also file an election petition against the High Court order. The lawyer sought permission to withdraw the petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court. The permission was granted. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn. The website of the High Court indicates that the petitioner has not approached the division bench of the Patna High Court with an appeal against the order of the single judge who rejected his petition challenging the rejection of his nomination form, as yet. It also indicates that no election petition has been filed against the High Court's order so far.

"Counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present petition for exhausting the remedy available before the constitutional court," the bench noted while permitting the counsel to withdraw the plea. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/elections/india/lok-sabha-elections-2024-sc-refuses-to-entertain-independent-candidates-plea-against-rejection-of-nomination-3046420