Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav has recently intensified his allegations of vote theft during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, accusing the Election Commission (EC), the government, and district administrations of colluding to manipulate the results. These accusations have been met with strong rebuttals from district magistrates (DMs) across Uttar Pradesh, who have presented data and clarifications to counter Yadav's claims.

Yadav's allegations center around the deletion of voters, particularly from specific communities, and irregularities in the handling of digital receipts related to submitted affidavits. He claims that the EC has ignored repeated complaints from his party regarding electoral malpractice, including instances in a recent bypoll where officials allegedly colluded with the ruling BJP to "loot votes". Yadav has also stated that around 18,000 SP votes were deliberately deleted during the 2022 elections, presenting affidavits to the EC as evidence. He argues that if these digital receipts are invalid, the credibility of both the EC and the "Digital India" initiative is undermined.

In response to Yadav's accusations, DMs from various districts have stepped forward to fact-check and refute his claims. For example, the DM of Jaunpur clarified that a complaint regarding the deletion of five voters in the Jaunpur Assembly Constituency was baseless, as the individuals in question had passed away before 2022 and their names were removed following confirmation from family members, locals, and the local councillor. Similarly, the DM of Barabanki countered Yadav's claims of malicious vote deletion, stating that complaints about the deletion of two voters in the Kursi Assembly constituency were false, and the voters' names remained registered. The DM of Kasganj also refuted allegations of voter deletion in the Amanpur Assembly Constituency, clarifying that the names of seven out of eight voters mentioned were still on the voter list.

These responses from district officials directly contradict Yadav's claims and raise questions about the accuracy of the information he presented. The conflicting statements between Yadav and the DMs have led to a situation where "one of them is lying," according to Yadav himself. He has questioned why DMs are responding to allegations if the EC claims no affidavits were received.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the role and credibility of the Election Commission. Yadav has accused the EC of functioning under pressure from the BJP and failing to take action on complaints raised by his party. He has also alleged that election officials were deployed along caste lines, influencing election outcomes. Yadav has stated that people are "dissatisfied" with the Election Commission's working, and that questions have been raised on the poll body over several elections. He has called for strict action against officials responsible for irregularities in the rolls, suggesting that suspending District Magistrates would prevent vote theft.

This is not the first time allegations of EVM tampering and vote theft have surfaced in Indian elections. In 2022, ahead of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election results, Yadav raised concerns about the security of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), accusing officials of tampering and alleging that the Varanasi District Magistrate was transporting EVMs without informing local candidates. However, it was clarified that the EVMs in question were being transported for training purposes, and the Election Commission has consistently maintained the integrity and security of the EVM system.

The current "vote theft" row in Uttar Pradesh highlights the ongoing concerns and debates surrounding the fairness and transparency of the electoral process in India. While Akhilesh Yadav and other opposition leaders continue to raise questions about voter deletions and the conduct of election officials, the Election Commission and district administrations have presented their own set of facts and clarifications. The controversy underscores the need for greater transparency, accountability, and public trust in the electoral system to ensure the integrity of democratic processes.