A fresh political flashpoint has emerged around the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh after Bhanvi Singh, wife of independent MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh, widely known as Raja Bhaiya, alleged that her name and those of her two daughters were removed from the voter list in the Kunda assembly constituency of Pratapgarh district.Singh made the allegation public through a post on social media platform X, saying the deletions were carried out without prior notice or a clear explanation. She questioned the basis on which the decision was taken and asserted that the move had been made under pressure, describing it as selective and unjustified. According to her statement, the names of her daughters were also struck off despite their eligibility as registered voters.
The controversy has added momentum to the broader debate surrounding the ongoing SIR exercise in the state, which aims to update electoral rolls by removing duplicate, shifted or deceased voters while ensuring eligible citizens are included. While election authorities have maintained that the exercise follows statutory procedures, opposition leaders and civil society groups have raised concerns about errors, lack of transparency and the potential for misuse.
In separate letters addressed to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the Election Commission of India, Singh said she was being singled out and sought an immediate review of the deletions. She asked for a written explanation citing the legal provisions under which the names were removed and called for accountability if procedural lapses were found. The letters emphasised that her family had not received any official communication seeking clarification or documents before the deletions were made.
Raja Bhaiya, a five-time MLA from Kunda, has often maintained an independent political stance and is not formally aligned with the ruling party or the principal opposition. His wife’s intervention has therefore been viewed by political observers as significant, particularly because it brings the issue of electoral roll revisions into sharper public focus beyond party lines.
Officials associated with the election machinery have said, in general terms, that names can be removed during a revision if Booth Level Officers record that a voter has shifted residence, is untraceable, or fails to respond to verification visits. They have also stressed that there are established mechanisms for affected voters to file claims and objections within stipulated timelines. However, in this instance, no specific clarification has been issued publicly regarding Singh’s case.
The SIR exercise in Uttar Pradesh, one of the largest such undertakings in the country given the state’s electorate, has already drawn scrutiny from opposition parties. Several leaders have alleged that legitimate voters, particularly women and young adults, have found their names missing, while others have complained of insufficient door-to-door verification. Some have demanded that the Election Commission pause the process and conduct an audit of deletions before the final rolls are published.
Legal experts note that electoral law requires transparency and due process during roll revisions, including adequate notice to voters and clear documentation of reasons for deletion. Any deviation, they argue, could invite legal challenges and undermine confidence in the electoral process. They also point out that the credibility of elections rests heavily on the accuracy of voter rolls, especially in politically sensitive regions.
Within Uttar Pradesh’s political circles, the episode has intensified calls for greater oversight of the revision process. Opposition figures have seized upon Singh’s allegations as evidence that the exercise may be vulnerable to arbitrary action, while supporters of the government have cautioned against drawing conclusions before the authorities respond formally.