The Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh State Election Commission to explain, on affidavit, why 32 villagers were allegedly struck off the Balrampur voter list for a gram panchayat while 48 people said to be living elsewhere were added to it.
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has directed the Uttar Pradesh State Election Commission to file a counter affidavit placing on record the basis for deleting the names of 32 petitioners from the Panchayat Electoral Roll (Final Voter List) 2025 of Gram Panchayat Roopnagar in Balrampur district, and for adding the names of 48 others whom the petitioners say do not live in the village [Santosh Kumar and 31 Others v. State Election Commissioner (Panchayat and Local Bodies), U.P. State Election Commission, Lucknow and 52 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order on October 28, 2026, in a writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar and 31 other residents of the village in Block Tulsipur.
The case
The petitioners alleged that their names were illegally deleted during the revision of the electoral roll by the State Election Commissioner, as they did not appear in the final Panchayat voter list for 2025 of Gram Panchayat Roopnagar.
They further alleged that the names of respondents 6 to 53 had been illegally added to the same final list even though those persons were not living in the village. The order records the submission as follows:
“It has been further submitted that names of respondent nos. 6 to 53 have been illegally added in the Panchayat Electoral Roll (Final Voter List) 2025 despite the fact that they are not living in the village.”
The directions
After hearing counsel, the Bench issued notice to respondents 6 to 53, returnable at an early date, and directed the State Election Commission authorities, respondents 1 and 2, to file a counter affidavit. The order states:
“In the meanwhile, let counter affidavit be filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, indicating and bringing on record the basis for deleting names of the petitioners and adding names of respondent nos. 6 to 53.”
The matter will be listed on December 15, 2026, within the top ten cases, as the petitioners had prayed.
The allegations in the petition are yet to be answered by the State Election Commission or by the persons whose names were added, and the Court has not ruled on them.
A second Panchayat roll challenge
The Balrampur petition is the second recent challenge before the Lucknow Bench to the final Panchayat voter lists. Earlier this month, Justice Jaspreet Singh sought an explanation from the State Election Commission authorities over the omission of 138 residents of Gopalpur village in Amethi district from the final list, even though their names had appeared in the draft roll, and asked the State to explain the procedure under which names could be deleted at the stage of final publication without notice.
Why the order matters
A name on the electoral roll is the gateway to the vote, and in a gram panchayat the margin between candidates can be a handful of votes. Deleting 32 residents while adding 48 alleged outsiders, if established, could change the outcome of a village election, which is why the petitioners have sought early listing.
The order does not decide the dispute, but it places the burden of explanation where the record lies. By requiring the State Election Commission to set out on affidavit the basis for each deletion and addition, the Court has ensured that the revision process will be tested against the material behind it, a pattern now visible across Panchayat roll challenges in Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar and 31 Others v. State Election Commissioner (Panchayat and Local Bodies), U.P. State Election Commission, Lucknow and 52 Others [WRIT-C No. 11013 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal, Khushnuma Bano, Mohammad Faizan and Mohd. Parvez Iqbal for the petitioners; Aakash Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents