How the controversy began
A new row erupted on 25th August after the Samajwadi Party (SP) media cell shared a video of Uttar Pradesh minister Asim Arun. In the video, Arun spoke about irregularities in Kannauj, saying that some voters’ names appeared multiple times in the rolls. He, however, praised the Election Commission of India (ECI) for addressing these problems. Arun also called out SP leaders for “stealing votes” in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Arun even reminded SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, who had won the Kannauj seat by 1.70 lakh votes over BJP’s Subrat Pathak, to face the facts. The SP media cell twisted the video and posted it with its own caption attacking the ECI. They even tagged the poll body. Soon, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of UP replied that the issue had been noted. He directed the District Election Officer to conduct an inquiry.
SP accuses EC of bias
Following this, the SP claimed that the Election Commission listens only to the ruling BJP and ignores the complaints of the opposition. The party alleged that while BJP leaders’ concerns were addressed quickly, opposition grievances were brushed aside.
The SP media cell went further, accusing District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrates of colluding with BJP leaders during elections. It even demanded that such officers be suspended and charged under sedition laws, terming electoral misconduct as “treason.”
SP also launched a direct attack on the Election Commission, comparing it to “Dhritarashtra”, the blind king from the Mahabharata. They accused it of being complicit in BJP’s alleged fraud in the 2022 assembly polls and later by-elections.
The “18,000 affidavits” claim
The Samajwadi Party has repeatedly claimed that it submitted 18,000 affidavits alleging large-scale voter fraud and deletion of names. It alleged that these complaints were ignored and instead, those who came forward were threatened. The party declared that public trust in the ECI was “completely destroyed.”
However, the CEO UP gave a point-by-point rebuttal. He clarified that not a single original affidavit was submitted. Instead, the SP had only sent scanned copies through email—3919 in total—covering 74 assembly constituencies across 33 districts.
Investigations into five constituencies revealed shocking facts. Several affidavits were created in the names of people who had died years earlier. Additionally, others denied ever signing or submitting any affidavit. The CEO noted that creating false evidence is a criminal offence.
SP doubles down despite exposure
Even after these revelations, the SP refused to back down. The party said the Election Commission was engaging in a cover-up and insisted that “collusion with BJP has been proven.” It claimed that the truth was now out in public and that people had lost faith in the ECI.
But this was not the first time the UP CEO had debunked Akhilesh Yadav’s claims. Earlier on 21st August, Yadav had accused the ECI of manipulating affidavits, saying only 14 out of 18,000 were addressed. He termed it the “mathematics of justice.”
The CEO quickly countered, revealing that the only formal complaint received was about four voters from Chakia constituency. Their names were allegedly deleted. Upon field inquiry, all four voters denied submitting any affidavit or complaint. Their names were intact in the voter list.
What the Election Commission said
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar too had clarified on 17th August that the ECI had not received any affidavits from Akhilesh Yadav or the UP unit of SP. The matter, he said, was investigated by District Magistrates. They found that voter deletions were due to routine reasons like death, migration, or duplication, not fraud.
This official clarification directly contradicted SP’s narrative, but the party continues to claim otherwise.
Asim Arun’s charges against SP
Meanwhile, Asim Arun reiterated that names of SP’s strongmen and their family members, including Nawab Singh, were found listed multiple times on the Kannauj voter rolls. Nawab Singh, who is currently jailed in a rape case, was once considered close to the SP and referred to as the “mini CM” of Kannauj.
Arun demanded that the DEO conduct a proper investigation and take strict action. He further urged the SP to apologise for “manipulating the voter list” in Kannauj.
The fresh controversy highlights a pattern. The SP levels sweeping allegations of voter fraud and bias against the Election Commission, but fails to present verifiable evidence. On the contrary, investigations have shown that many of the affidavits it submitted were fake or filed in the names of deceased individuals.
The Election Commission has consistently maintained transparency by issuing clarifications and fact-checks. Yet, the Samajwadi Party continues to push its claims, relying more on political rhetoric than substantiated facts.
