Uttar Pradesh election office acknowledges duplicate voter card generation
Uttar Pradesh’s election authorities have acknowledged that repeated registration applications can generate multiple voter identity cards, while directing officials to eliminate duplicate electoral roll entries before the next draft is published.
Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa has instructed district election officials to identify voters registered more than once during the Special Intensive Revision and resolve such cases through prescribed procedures. The directions follow a public clarification by his office that the issue of multiple Electors Photo Identity Cards, or EPICs, arising from repeated applications has persisted for years.
The office said it periodically conducts deduplication through ECINET, the Election Commission’s digital platform, and is developing checks to detect multiple applications from the same person when they are submitted. Such screening would allow officials to identify repetition before separate cards are generated rather than relying exclusively on subsequent corrections.
Rinwa told officials at a virtual review meeting on Monday that booth-level officers should identify duplicate entries and ensure their prompt resolution using Form 7, the prescribed application for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll. He said cases must be handled according to electoral rules.
The exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of the draft electoral roll scheduled for publication on November 12. Rinwa asked electoral registration officers and other district officials to treat duplicate entries as a priority and warned that negligence in carrying out assigned responsibilities would invite action.
The clarification arose from an exchange on social media platform X between the Uttar Pradesh election office and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair. Zubair questioned how one voter could receive four EPICs despite, he alleged, submitting only two applications after finding the person's name missing from the draft roll.
The election office disputed that description. It maintained that the individual had submitted four applications, not two, and challenged Zubair to provide the reference numbers of the two applications he cited. The office offered to produce the reference numbers for the remaining applications to support its account.
At the same time, the office acknowledged the broader administrative problem. It said multiple forms submitted by one person could result in multiple EPICs and described this as a longstanding difficulty. It maintained that periodic deduplication was already being undertaken, while work continued on identifying repeat submissions at the initial application stage.
The exchange distinguishes between the number of identity cards issued and the accuracy of the underlying voter register. An EPIC is an identity document associated with electoral registration, while eligibility to vote depends on inclusion in the relevant electoral roll. Possession of several cards does not itself establish that a person has cast multiple votes.
The office did not disclose how many duplicate cards had been generated across Uttar Pradesh, how many corresponding entries remained on electoral rolls or how many cases had been resolved through ECINET. It also gave no definite date for introducing the proposed application-stage checks.
The dispute has emerged during heightened scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision, an exercise intended to verify electoral records and address entries requiring correction. Questions about repeated applications have added to concerns over the reliability of registration processes and the safeguards used to distinguish genuine voters from duplicated records.
Election authorities must also address the separate problem of eligible residents whose names are absent from the register. Rinwa instructed field officials to conduct an extensive awareness campaign and help eligible citizens apply for inclusion, emphasising that correcting duplicate records should not displace efforts to register qualified voters.
Officials are preparing a special campaign day on October 24 as part of that enrolment effort. District election teams and electoral registration officers have been asked to coordinate arrangements, assist applicants and address outstanding registration issues ahead of the scheduled publication of the draft roll.
The instructions place responsibility for identifying questionable entries on officials working at constituency and polling booth levels. Their verification work is expected to complement digital checks, particularly where repeated applications contain overlapping personal details. Electoral registration officers remain responsible for determining whether an entry requires correction or deletion under established procedures.
Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion on the electoral roll, while Form 7 provides a mechanism for objections and deletions. The latter requires examination under the applicable rules, rather than treating a flagged duplication as automatic grounds for removing a voter’s name.
Chief Electoral Officer Navdeep Rinwa has instructed district election officials to identify voters registered more than once during the Special Intensive Revision and resolve such cases through prescribed procedures. The directions follow a public clarification by his office that the issue of multiple Electors Photo Identity Cards, or EPICs, arising from repeated applications has persisted for years.
The office said it periodically conducts deduplication through ECINET, the Election Commission’s digital platform, and is developing checks to detect multiple applications from the same person when they are submitted. Such screening would allow officials to identify repetition before separate cards are generated rather than relying exclusively on subsequent corrections.
Rinwa told officials at a virtual review meeting on Monday that booth-level officers should identify duplicate entries and ensure their prompt resolution using Form 7, the prescribed application for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll. He said cases must be handled according to electoral rules.
The exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of the draft electoral roll scheduled for publication on November 12. Rinwa asked electoral registration officers and other district officials to treat duplicate entries as a priority and warned that negligence in carrying out assigned responsibilities would invite action.
The clarification arose from an exchange on social media platform X between the Uttar Pradesh election office and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair. Zubair questioned how one voter could receive four EPICs despite, he alleged, submitting only two applications after finding the person's name missing from the draft roll.
The election office disputed that description. It maintained that the individual had submitted four applications, not two, and challenged Zubair to provide the reference numbers of the two applications he cited. The office offered to produce the reference numbers for the remaining applications to support its account.
At the same time, the office acknowledged the broader administrative problem. It said multiple forms submitted by one person could result in multiple EPICs and described this as a longstanding difficulty. It maintained that periodic deduplication was already being undertaken, while work continued on identifying repeat submissions at the initial application stage.
The exchange distinguishes between the number of identity cards issued and the accuracy of the underlying voter register. An EPIC is an identity document associated with electoral registration, while eligibility to vote depends on inclusion in the relevant electoral roll. Possession of several cards does not itself establish that a person has cast multiple votes.
The office did not disclose how many duplicate cards had been generated across Uttar Pradesh, how many corresponding entries remained on electoral rolls or how many cases had been resolved through ECINET. It also gave no definite date for introducing the proposed application-stage checks.
The dispute has emerged during heightened scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision, an exercise intended to verify electoral records and address entries requiring correction. Questions about repeated applications have added to concerns over the reliability of registration processes and the safeguards used to distinguish genuine voters from duplicated records.
Election authorities must also address the separate problem of eligible residents whose names are absent from the register. Rinwa instructed field officials to conduct an extensive awareness campaign and help eligible citizens apply for inclusion, emphasising that correcting duplicate records should not displace efforts to register qualified voters.
Officials are preparing a special campaign day on October 24 as part of that enrolment effort. District election teams and electoral registration officers have been asked to coordinate arrangements, assist applicants and address outstanding registration issues ahead of the scheduled publication of the draft roll.
The instructions place responsibility for identifying questionable entries on officials working at constituency and polling booth levels. Their verification work is expected to complement digital checks, particularly where repeated applications contain overlapping personal details. Electoral registration officers remain responsible for determining whether an entry requires correction or deletion under established procedures.
Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion on the electoral roll, while Form 7 provides a mechanism for objections and deletions. The latter requires examination under the applicable rules, rather than treating a flagged duplication as automatic grounds for removing a voter’s name.