By Satnam Singh Chahal | Punjab Outlook — Political Analysis-A new investigation by The Reporters’ Collective, published on November 10, 2026, has raised questions about the accuracy and transparency of election records maintained by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir.
The investigation examined internal election records from 530 constituencies 63 parliamentary and 467 Assembly constituencies covering 4,212 physical records submitted by returning officers. According to the investigation, discrepancies were identified in 51 constituencies. In 19 of these, officials had entered ‘0’ or ‘Nil’ in the records where the number of voters who entered polling booths was expected to be recorded. The report says that these entries made it difficult to independently verify the relevant voting figures.
The investigation also identified 32 electoral contests in which the recorded number of votes polled did not match the number counted on EVMs. It reported that in 12 constituencies, fewer votes were counted than the number recorded as polled, while in 20 constituencies the counted number was higher. Such differences require constituency-specific explanations and scrutiny rather than assumptions about their cause.
One important distinction is that the headline reference to 63 seats relates to the number of parliamentary constituencies included in the investigation. It does not mean that 63 seats had zero votes or that 63 constituencies were found to have missing votes. The report’s findings cover 51 constituencies with different types of recordkeeping concerns.
The report also highlighted examples from Haryana and Maharashtra. In Badkhal Assembly constituency in Haryana and Mumbai North Lok Sabha constituency, the records appeared to show the total number of registered electors in the column for voters who had voted. These figures should not be interpreted as proof that lakhs of votes were cast but not counted. The Election Commission’s position is that the figures in Form 17A and Form 17C represent different information and are not necessarily identical.
The Election Commission’s published EVM FAQs explain that the number of voters recorded in Form 17A may differ from the number of votes recorded by the EVM, for reasons such as voters who enter the polling station but do not cast a vote. The Commission says the EVM total and the corresponding total in Form 17C Part I should match. It also describes the scrutiny process followed before and during counting.
The central issue, therefore, is not whether the investigation has established election rigging. It has not. The issue is why election records in a number of constituencies contained zero entries or apparent differences, whether these were clerical or procedural mistakes, and whether the Election Commission conducted and disclosed adequate constituency-level scrutiny.
In a democracy, public confidence in elections depends not only on the declaration of results but also on transparent records and credible explanations. The Election Commission should provide clear, constituency-specific information about the reported anomalies and explain what action was taken to verify the records.
The findings deserve serious public attention, but they should also be examined carefully. An unexplained entry is a legitimate reason to seek clarification; it is not, by itself, proof that votes were stolen or that an election result was manipulated.The question that now needs a clear answer is simple: were these zero entries and apparent differences properly investigated, and can the Election Commission make the relevant records and explanations available to the public?
Sources: The Reporters’ Collective investigation, November 10, 2026; Election Commission of India EVM FAQs; and reporting by The Deccan Chronicle. reporters-collective.inpunjabi
Disclaimer: This article and accompanying images are for informational and illustrative purposes only. Some visuals may be AI-generated or digitally enhanced and may not depict actual events or persons.Views expressed are based on publicly available information and analysis