The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, amplified the issue during his "Voter Adhikar Yatra", sharing a message on social media that questioned how an entire village could be recorded as residing at one address. The party suggested this raises concerns about the robustness of door-to-door verification and flagged such practices as enabling fake or duplicated voter entries.
Authorities from Gaya district swiftly responded, releasing video clips featuring Nidani residents. One villager stressed that house numbers simply do not exist in the village and emphasised satisfaction with the Local Booth Level Officer’s verification process. A female resident affirmed she had voted in previous elections and her name remained valid on the electoral roll.
The Bihar Chief Electoral Officer’s office provided further clarification. They said that in areas without formal house numbering—such as villages or settlements—the Election Commission assigns "notional" house numbers purely for administrative order, not implying actual multiple residents in one house.
This controversy unfolds against the backdrop of a wider electoral dispute. A Supreme Court case, Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, is underway, challenging the legality of the SIR process. The court has issued interim directives obliging the Commission to release a searchable list of the over 65 lakh names deleted from the draft roll, detailing reasons for those omissions, and to accept identity claims backed by Aadhaar or EPIC.
Political undercurrents deepen this issue. Bihar holds critical weight in national politics with its 40 Lok Sabha seats, and electoral integrity remains a flashpoint for both ruling and opposition parties. Allegations of mass deletions and listing anomalies, prominently raised by the Congress, have become central to the INDIA bloc’s electoral strategy.
Key players include the Election Commission, under scrutiny from both the judiciary and political opposition; the Congress, raising the anomaly as emblematic of broader electoral mismanagement or bias; and district officials, who have tried to counter claims with procedural explanations and citizen testimonies.