An analysis of voter data from the recently concluded Maharashtra assembly elections of 2024 has revealed a mismatch between the number of votes polled and those counted in 95 out of the state’s 288 constituencies. These discrepancies have reignited concerns over electoral transparency and data accuracy in India’s democratic process.
According to data from the Election Commission of India (ECI), the final voter turnout for the election was recorded at 66.05%, translating to 64,088,195 votes cast—split among 33,437,057 male voters, 30,649,318 female voters, and 1,820 others. When postal votes amounting to 538,225 are included, the total number of votes polled stands at 64,626,420. However, the ECI’s official tally of votes counted on the day of results was 64,592,508—a shortfall of 33,912 votes.
The inconsistencies manifest in two ways: in 19 constituencies, the number of votes counted exceeded the total of votes polled and postal ballots, while in 76 constituencies, the counted votes fell short. For example, in the Loha constituency, 154 more votes were counted than the total number polled. Conversely, in the Nipad constituency, there was a shortfall of 2,587 votes in the counted total.
These mismatches echo concerns raised during the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections, when discrepancies were observed between voter turnout data and Form 17C, which records the number of votes polled at individual polling stations. At the time, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking the release of polling station-level voter turnout data within 48 hours of each phase of voting. The ADR argued that delays and inconsistencies could erode trust in the electoral process. However, the Supreme Court declined the plea, citing logistical challenges and concerns raised by the ECI about potential misuse of such data.
The ECI defended its stance, arguing that Form 17C data, while available to candidates’ agents, is not intended for public dissemination. The Court agreed, stating that there was no statutory obligation to make this data public and that doing so could lead to unnecessary administrative burdens.
Amid the ongoing election controversy, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi has raised questions about the discrepancies, calling on the ECI to provide a clear explanation. In response, The Wire has reached out to the ECI for clarification, promising updates once a response is received.
The data discrepancies in the Maharashtra elections have once again spotlighted the need for transparency in electoral processes. While the ECI attributes these mismatches to the reconciliation process, critics argue that the persistent issues suggest a need for more robust data collection and verification mechanisms. The lack of publicly available polling station-level data, as highlighted in the ADR’s previous petition, makes it difficult for independent entities to verify vote counts and address public concerns.
The inconsistencies do not appear to be linked to any specific political party or the outcomes of the elections. For example, in the Maval constituency, a discrepancy of 2,012 votes was noted. The total votes polled on November 20 were 280,319, and the postal votes added up to 774, making a total of 281,093. However, the ECI reported the total votes counted as 279,081, leaving a shortfall of 2,012 votes.
In contrast, the Loha constituency presented a surplus. Here, the votes polled on the same date amounted to 226,837, with 2,900 postal votes, bringing the total to 229,737. Yet, the final tally reported by the ECI was 229,891, showing an excess of 154 votes.
These irregularities could result from various factors, such as human errors in data entry, technical glitches in handling Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips, or clerical mistakes during reconciliation. Regardless of the cause, such issues highlight the importance of transparency and rigorous auditing procedures in maintaining public trust in electoral systems.
To address public skepticism, the ECI could consider releasing more granular data wherever possible and conducting thorough investigations into reported discrepancies. Proactive communication and increased transparency are vital to bolstering confidence in India’s democratic framework.
The ECI has previously acknowledged the challenges in ensuring perfect accuracy in vote counting. For instance, it stated that discrepancies could arise if mock poll data is not cleared from an EVM’s control unit before polling begins or if results fail to display correctly due to technical malfunctions. Moreover, mismatches between Form 17C data and EVM records could lead to confusion, compounded by human error in clerical or typing tasks.
In its official clarification regarding these issues, the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Office emphasized that the total votes polled, including postal ballots, amounted to 64,626,420, while the total votes counted were 64,592,508. The office further explained that discrepancies in certain constituencies occurred due to established protocols. For example, in cases where EVM data was compromised or mismatched, VVPAT slips from affected polling stations were not counted if the winning margin was higher than the total votes polled in those stations.
The Chief Electoral Office also addressed reports alleging significant vote differences in two constituencies—Ashti and Osmanabad. It clarified that in Ashti, a total of 5,013 postal votes were polled, of which 475 were rejected, leaving 4,538 valid postal votes. Similarly, in Osmanabad, 4,330 postal votes were cast, with 175 rejected, resulting in 4,155 valid votes.
Despite these explanations, the persistence of discrepancies highlights the need for reforms in India’s electoral system. Increased data transparency, rigorous auditing, and improved communication channels are necessary to prevent such issues in future elections. As public trust forms the bedrock of democracy, addressing these concerns is not just desirable but essential.
