Ambedkar Warns Of Large-Scale Voter Exclusion In Maharashtra
Mr. Ambedkar warned that large-scale deletions could directly affect the outcome of upcoming elections in the state.
Mumbai: Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) leader Prakash Ambedkar on Saturday claimed that the names of nearly 2.9 crore voters could be deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Maharashtra’s electoral rolls. The VBA also announced a state-wide protest on April 6 over the ongoing LPG shortage.
Mr. Ambedkar warned that large-scale deletions could directly affect the outcome of upcoming elections in the state. In a social media post, he questioned the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging that “irregularities in the voter list revision process could lead to large-scale exclusion of voters.”
The VBA leader further claimed that among the 2.9 crore voters purportedly set to be removed, around 2.5 lakh names from each Lok Sabha constituency and 30,000 names from each Assembly constituency belonging to Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s faction would be deleted. Mr. Ambedkar also criticised the working style of Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, saying the Congress leader should have personally met affected voters to substantiate allegations of “fraud” by the Commission. “Rather than merely making allegations, if Mr. Gandhi had brought an affected family before the media, it would have proved that the Election Commission is committing fraud,” he said.
The Special Intensive Revision is carried out by the Election Commission to remove discrepancies in electoral rolls, including duplicate entries and names of deceased voters. However, opposition parties have consistently alleged that the process is being misused to selectively exclude voters from certain communities or ideological groups.
Two days ago, a Maharashtra Congress delegation met state Chief Electoral Officer S. Chockalingam, urging that the SIR be conducted transparently and without haste. The party noted that no elections are scheduled in the state for the next two to three years, and argued that even if the revision takes 18–24 months, it would help build public confidence in the process.