NEW DELHI |The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has rejected the Election Commission’s explanation for the addition of Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha’s name to the Delhi voter list, demanding transparency on the process through which his vote was added. AAP National Media In-Charge Anurag Dhanda challenged the Election Commission to make Chadha’s Form 6 public and allow citizens to file objections against it through the same process available to any ordinary voter.
The AAP National Media In-charge pointed to the Rajinder Nagar records, where he said Raghav Chadha’s name does not appear in any Form 6 filed between September 1 and 7. He questioned whether Chadha’s name was added through the back door under Amit Shah’s pressure, asking how his name could now appear at serial number 747 when the draft roll had 746 voters and the final roll has not yet been published.
Addressing a press conference, AAP National Media In-Charge Anurag Dhanda stated,“On Tuesday, we placed the facts before everyone and pointed out that the Election Commission was acting arbitrarily in the SIR and that names were being added from the back door without any record. After this, the Election Commission issued a press release in its defence. That press release itself confirms what we said.”
He continued, “Every SOP and procedure that we referred to has been affirmed by the Election Commission in its press release. But if those SOPs and procedures are correct, the Election Commission is still not explaining how Raghav Chadha’s name was added to the voter list.”
Anurag Dhanda explained, “The Election Commission has stated in its press note that Enumeration Forms could be filled between June 30 and August 17. The list was frozen on August 31, and from August 31 to September 30, there is a period for objections to those who have filed Form 6, followed by approval by the ERO. According to the Election Commission, a vote can be added only through three methods: Form 6, Form 7 and Form 8.”
Elaborating on the three forms, he added,“Of these, Form 8 is for transferring a vote, which cannot have happened here because no vote was transferred from the Punjab voter list to Delhi. If a transfer had taken place, there would have been no need to mark him as ‘shifted’ in the Punjab SIR; his vote would have simply been removed from there. The second is Form 7, which is used to raise an objection to a new Form 6, so this also has no connection with Raghav Chadha’s case. Now, what remains is Form 6. If Raghav Chadha has filed Form 6 in Delhi, the Election Commission will have to clarify on what date it was filed, when it was filed and where that Form 6 is. Under the mandatory rules, why was it not uploaded on the Election Commission’s website for a few days so that people could raise objections?”
Anurag Dhanda pointed out, “The Election Commission itself has acknowledged that the draft roll contains voters only up to serial number 746 and that whenever the final electoral roll is published, its serial numbers will continue from where the draft roll ends. But the final roll has not even been published yet. The date for publication of the final roll is November 4, 2026, when the supplementary electoral roll will be published and the next serial numbers can be added. So where has Raghav Chadha’s 747th serial number come from now?”
He further stated, “If the Election Commission claims that this was done through Form 6, then we have the list of all Form 6 applications filed from September 1 to September 7, after the August 31 draft roll was published. It is a mandatory rule for the Election Commission to make public the list of applications for new voter registrations so that anyone with an objection can raise it. All these Form 6 applications are from the Rajinder Nagar Assembly constituency, and Raghav Chadha’s name does not appear in any of them.”
He asserted,“The Election Commission is lying when it says that Raghav Chadha got his vote added by filling Form 6 through the prescribed process. When was his Form 6 filed, from where was it processed and why was it not put on the website for objections? It appears that, bypassing all procedures and SOPs, a call was made directly to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from Union Home Minister Amit Shah, following which Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar directly got Raghav Chadha’s name entered into the voter list through the back door.”
Issuing an open challenge to the Election Commission, Anurag Dhanda stated, “The Election Commission is being openly challenged to make public which form was filled and through what process Raghav Chadha’s vote was added to the Delhi voter list. The Election Commission has made public the names of all those who filed Form 6 in Rajinder Nagar, so this is not a question of withholding personal information. It is the Election Commission’s responsibility to invite objections to new votes and for the ERO to take a decision on them.”
Anurag Dhanda concluded, “If the Election Commission’s intentions are clear and this was not done through the back door by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the behest of Amit Shah, then the Election Commission should issue a press release clarifying when Raghav Chadha filed Form 6. That Form 6 should be made public and people should be given time to file objections against it. The Election Commission must also clarify under whose pressure it is lying and under whose pressure the truth about Raghav Chadha’s fake voter entry is being concealed.”
