In West Bengal, Errors, Opacity & A Skew Against Muslim Voters—Latest Question Mark Over India’s Election Process (Article 14)

The revision of West Bengal’s electoral rolls has removed or placed over 12 million voters under scrutiny—with half of these, more than any other state, ‘under adjudication’ after the final roll—marked by data errors and opaque notices. Home minister Amit Shah, in December, told Parliament that his government would ‘detect, delete, deport’. In January the Election Commission said its job was to check citizenship only for voting rights. Evidence from districts with large Muslim populations points to disproportionate impact and higher deletion of women.

Hazifa Khatun, 64, a former government office superintendent from Murshidabad, said she was ‘stunned’ when she received a notice in late January 2026 saying her place in the electoral rolls was ‘under adjudication’. She is one of 6.01 million voters in West Bengal whose voting rights are under scrutiny even after the ‘final’ voter roll was released on 28 February 2026/ CHISTY TM

By Sayantani Upadhaya

Kolkata: In 1999, Mohua Islam, 55, and Abdul Gani, 66, named their daughter Amrita Priyadarshinee. They never imagined that her name would lead to her inclusion on electoral rolls being questioned.

A gold medalist in biophysics, the 26-year-old, lively, thoughtful young woman, was preparing for government exams when the booth-level officer informed her in December 2025 that she had been summoned to a hearing. 

The notice puzzled her. She had been a voter for seven years, voting in the 2019 and 2024 parliamentary elections and the 2021 state assembly election.

“I just want to understand why I was summoned,” she said. Priyadarshinee visited the hearing centre carrying every document she could think of. “I submitted my passport and Aadhaar card along with my father’s documents. Still, I was told my case is under scrutiny.” 

“I kept asking them what the problem was,” she said. “No one answered.”

Her parents, Islam, a school teacher, and Gani, a retired professor, were also confused. “Naming her Amrita Priyadarshinee was simply a personal choice,” said Gani. “My wife also does not share my surname. Even if we named our daughter Margaret Thatcher, how could that be a reason to question her citizenship?”

Priyadarshinee also suspects the issue may stem from her not sharing her parents’ surname. “When my parents’ records are fine, they were not summoned, and I have been mapped through them, how could I be at fault?” she asked. “There are many people in the world who do not have surnames.”

Priyadarshinee is still waiting to learn whether she will remain on the voters’ list.

This story was originally published in article-14.com. Read the full story here.

Related Articles

×