Andhra CEO says no independent deletions. TNM’s questions about transparency remain

Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

Refuting a data-driven report by TNM, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has said that “no suo moto deletions were carried out independently by officers.” The statement, posted on the Andhra CEO’s official X account, responded to TNM’s findings that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs) were listed as objectors in consolidated Form 7 applications seeking the deletion of 20,959 electors’ names in just 12 days.

A report by TNM published on October 14 analysed data published by the Election Commission of India (ECI) between September 29 and October 10, under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Andhra Pradesh. 

During this period, 40,006 electors were listed for deletion through Form 7 applications. Of these, 20,959, or 52.38%, had an ERO or AERO listed as the objector.

Form 7 is used to object to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll or seek the deletion of an existing entry. The consolidated statement of these applications, known as Form 10, is published for each Assembly constituency. It records details of the objector, the elector whose name is being challenged and the reason for the objection.

Referencing both the Representation of the People Act 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, TNM’s article highlighted that while an ERO may initiate deletion proceedings, the officer cannot act as per law to be an objector in a Form 7 application.

TNM also found that while the reasons for deletion were recorded when ordinary electors were listed as objectors, they were missing in cases where EROs or AEROs were named. The report also found that the officials appeared as objectors in a large proportion of cases in constituencies with the highest numbers of deletions.

Officials who spoke to TNM attributed the discrepancy to the way the ERO-NET application processes deletion requests. They said that although Booth Level Officers (BLOs) conduct field verification and record the reasons for deletion, these details do not appear in the consolidated statements when applications are processed through the ERO or AERO login. They also said that the system allows bulk uploads of deletion requests.

The central concern raised by TNM was therefore not that election officials had independently deleted voters’ names without following due process. It was that the publicly available records did not clearly identify why the deletion had been sought by an ERO or AERO.

In its response, the Andhra CEO said that the ineligibility of affected electors and their deletion from the rolls had been communicated to each individual through a speaking order delivered by a BLO. It added that the process followed door-to-door verification by BLOs during the enumeration phase, when anomalies were identified and notices were issued to electors.

“There is no suo-motu deletions by the ERO / AEROs themselves. All the deletions / generation of Forms-7 by AEROs / EROs taken place strictly as per the ECI’s instructions,” the statement said.

However, this response does not directly address the transparency issues raised in TNM’s report: why EROs and AEROs appear as objectors in the published records, and why the reasons for deletion are not displayed in those cases.

TNM’s report questioned whether the ERO-NET system provides the transparency required of an electoral process.