Key Points
Odisha’s 2024 simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly polls have come under scrutiny after a Frontline investigation examined the Biju Janata Dal's allegations of mismatches between votes polled and counted at multiple booths.
The BJD had also questioned large differences between parliamentary and assembly vote totals in the same areas and sharp post-poll revisions in turnout percentages. Reports also pointed to discrepancies and delays nationwide during the 2024 Lok Sabha Election.
Despite complaints and RTIs, no clarification has been issued on the discrepancies till date, nearly two years later.
Concerns over electoral data integrity in Odisha’s 2024 simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections have intensified after a Frontline investigation, published on 26 January 2026, examined allegations levelled by the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) of “serious discrepancies” in booth-level and constituency-level vote figures.
The BJD had earlier in 2024 submitted detailed representations to the Election Commission of India (ECI), citing mismatches in the number of votes polled and those counted across several booths. The party said that despite follow-up meetings in 2025, it has not received a clear response.
The central issue raised relates to differences between Form 17C, which records votes polled at each booth at the close of voting, and Form 20, which reflects votes counted on counting day. Figures in the two forms should match for every booth.
The BJD cited Booth No. 57 in the Phulbani Assembly constituency as an example: 682 votes were recorded as polled in Form 17C, but none were shown as counted in Form 20. Similar discrepancies were flagged in Booths 165 and 219 of Talsara, and Booth 53 of Kuchinda, where hundreds of votes were reportedly cast but not reflected in counting figures. In its complaint to the ECI, BJD listed 58 such booths spread across 147 constituencies, with differences ranging from one to 908 votes.
The party also alleged instances of excess votes. In Padampur constituency, 14 booths that together recorded 82 votes polled as per Form 17C allegedly showed 9,304 votes counted in Form 20. BJD leaders said they did not have Form 17Cs from all booths, and that requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act were either rejected or went unanswered, except in limited cases.
Another area of concern was the difference between total votes in parliamentary constituencies and the combined totals of their constituent assembly segments. Because the elections were held simultaneously in the same polling stations, the party said large gaps were unexpected. It cited a difference of 4,056 votes in Dhenkanal, 3,521 in Kandhamal and 2,701 in Balangir. In Jajpur, where the victory margin was around 2,000 votes, the discrepancy cited was 677.
The BJD further pointed to what it described as unprecedented revisions in voter turnout. While initial percentages were released at 5pm and later at 11:45 pm on polling day, final figures issued two days later showed increases ranging from around 7% to over 17% in parliamentary constituencies, and 8.54% to 30.64% in Assembly seats. In Keonjhar Assembly constituency, from where CM Mohan Charan Majhi contested, the turnout jump was cited as 30.64% from the close-of-poll figure, with an additional 10% rise after 11.45 pm. The party questioned whether such late-night voting was plausible at that scale.
Nationally, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reported discrepancies between votes polled and counted in 538 Lok Sabha constituencies. It said 5,54,598 votes counted were fewer than votes polled in 362 constituencies, while 35,093 votes were counted in excess in 176 constituencies. ADR also highlighted delays in final turnout data release and absence of disaggregated figures in absolute numbers and called for publication of statutory forms including 17C and 20.
BJD leaders said their appeal was about transparency rather than electoral outcomes. They sought a high-level inquiry and clearer disclosure of booth-level data to address public doubts.
In the context of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which is marred by allegations of ‘vote chori’, this incident only adds fuel to the fire. Many opposition parties have alleged that the hurried and opaque process of the SIR points to collusion between the ECI and the Central government – which is only compounded by the ECI’s refusal to address any clarification and by how BJP leaders jump to the ECI’s defence whenever any doubts are raised.
An instance from nearly two years ago, that despite repeated appeals remains unclarified and unaddressed, only sows further doubt on the sanctity of India’s electoral process.
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
