A voter from Sikar says polling officials told him his vote had already been cast before he arrived. He alleges that he was repeatedly asked to wait and ultimately left without being allowed to vote. He also claims several other voters at the same polling location reported similar experiences.

Sikar, Rajasthan:

What happens when an eligible voter reaches a polling station, presents himself for verification and is told that his vote has already been cast?

That is the question raised by a voter from Ward No. 45 of Sikar Nagar Parishad, who has shared a detailed first-person account with Dweep Tulika following the circulation of a social-media video concerning the alleged incident.

The voter claims that he reached the polling station with his mother. His mother was allowed to vote first. When his turn came, however, he says polling officials informed him that his vote had already been recorded earlier that morning.

According to his testimony, officials pointed to a marking against his name and told him:

“You have already voted this morning.”

The voter says he immediately disputed this, stating that he had not visited the polling station earlier that day.

He also says he pointed out that there was no visible indelible ink on his finger.

However, the absence of visible ink by itself does not establish whether another person voted in his name. The matter would require examination of the polling records and the circumstances under which his name was marked.

What happens if someone has already voted in your name?

There is an important procedural question at the centre of the account.

The Election Commission of India states that when a genuine elector reaches a polling station and finds that somebody else has already voted in his name, the genuine elector can still be permitted to vote through a tendered ballot rather than through the EVM, provided the Presiding Officer is satisfied about the person's identity.

The ECI's polling handbook says the Presiding Officer should examine the identity of the person claiming to be the genuine elector through questioning and the identification documents produced. If satisfied, the elector is allowed to cast a tendered vote, with the prescribed record maintained in Form 17B.

That makes the voter's account particularly significant.

If his description is accurate, one of the questions requiring examination is whether he was offered the applicable tendered-ballot procedure after claiming that someone else had already voted in his name.

At present, Dweep Tulika has not independently established whether such a procedure was offered, whether it was applicable to this particular local-body election under Rajasthan's rules, or whether any tendered-vote record was made.

The alleged identification mismatch

The voter says officials subsequently checked details associated with the person who had supposedly already voted in his name.

According to his testimony, officials told him that the last four digits of the Aadhaar number associated with the earlier verification did not match his own Aadhaar details.

He says he produced his Aadhaar card and pointed out the discrepancy.

He further says he was willing to produce other valid identification documents, including his driving licence or passport, to establish his identity.

According to his account, officials nevertheless told him that no further identification was necessary and that nothing could be done because a vote had already been cast against his name.

He says he was asked to wait outside.

The Aadhaar-related allegation is particularly important but remains unverified. The actual identification document used by the earlier voter, what was recorded by polling officials and what identification was presented by the complainant would need to be established from official records.

Repeated requests for an explanation

The voter says he waited before returning to ask what would happen to his vote.

He says he was directed to the Booth Level Officer (BLO), to whom he explained the situation.

According to his account, the BLO directed him back towards the room where his verification had taken place.

He says he was again asked to wait outside.

Eventually, he says, he took his mother home and planned to return with his wife.

When he returned with his wife, he says she completed the verification process and was permitted to vote.

He then approached officials again.

His question, according to his testimony, remained:

If somebody else had already voted in my name, what happened to my vote?

He says he received responses including:

“We are looking into it.”

and

“Please wait outside.”

He further alleges that a police officer at the polling location behaved disrespectfully towards him and that he was eventually asked to leave through the gate.

These allegations have not been independently verified.

He says he returned to the polling station

The voter says he initially left because of professional commitments.

But he says the incident continued to concern him and he became worried that waiting until later in the day could mean his complaint would not receive attention.

He therefore says he cancelled scheduled work and returned to the polling location with members of his team.

According to his testimony, he was again stopped at the gate and told that he had already been informed that he would not be allowed to vote.

It was during this second visit, he says, that he encountered several other people at the polling location.

He claims that three or four people told him they had experienced a similar situation, alleging that they too had been informed that votes had already been cast in their names.

That claim is potentially significant—but remains entirely unverified by Dweep Tulika.

From one alleged incident to a wider question

Until his second visit, the voter says he regarded the matter as a possible individual error.

Hearing other people allegedly describe similar experiences made him question whether the problem might be broader.

He subsequently posted about his experience on social media.

According to his testimony, people responded with claims of similar experiences in other parts of Sikar, including references to Ward Nos. 43 and 15.

He also says he came across videos from other Sikar-based social-media pages discussing similar allegations.

None of those additional claims have been independently verified by Dweep Tulika.

They should therefore not be presented as evidence of widespread electoral irregularity.

If independently established, however, multiple complaints from different polling locations would warrant examination by the competent election authorities.

Ward 45 was part of Sikar's civic election

The allegation concerns Ward No. 45 of Sikar Nagar Parishad, which went to the polls on September 11 as part of Rajasthan's second-phase urban local-body elections.

Published 2026 electoral-roll information lists 3,445 electors in Ward 45, divided across three polling parts.

More broadly, reports from Rajasthan on polling day said allegations of bogus voting and clashes were reported in several places, including Sikar.

Those reports, however, do not establish the allegations made by this particular voter.

The two matters should not be conflated.

The questions that require answers

The testimony raises several questions that can be answered only through official records:

How was the voter's name marked as having already voted?
Who was recorded as having voted against his electoral-roll entry?
What identification document was presented by that person?
What identification details were recorded?
Did the identification details actually differ from those of the complainant?
Was the complainant's identity subsequently verified by the Presiding Officer?
Was a tendered ballot offered when he claimed that somebody else had already voted in his name?
Was any entry made in Form 17B, if the tendered-vote procedure was applicable?
Was the incident recorded in the Presiding Officer's diary or other election records?
Was CCTV/webcasting available at the polling station?
Were other voters at the same polling station recorded as having raised similar complaints?
Were any complaints of alleged impersonation or duplicate voting formally received?

The ECI's published election guidance specifically recognises the possibility of a person arriving after another person has already voted in that elector's name and provides for a tendered-ballot mechanism in such circumstances.

The applicability and precise procedure for the Rajasthan municipal election should, however, be confirmed from the Rajasthan State Election Commission and the relevant local-body election rules.

Not an allegation against a political party

The voter has not, in his written testimony to Dweep Tulika, attributed responsibility for the alleged incident to any particular political party or individual.

He says his purpose is to seek an investigation into what happened and to ensure that anyone who may have faced a similar problem receives an explanation.

That distinction is important.

At this stage, there is no basis in the supplied testimony to attribute the alleged incident to any political party.

The central issue is the integrity of the polling and verification process.

What Dweep Tulika has verified and what it has not

Dweep Tulika received the detailed account directly from the voter.

The account reproduced here represents his testimony and allegations.

At this stage, Dweep Tulika has not independently established:

who allegedly cast the earlier vote
whether impersonation actually occurred
what identification document was used by the earlier voter
whether the alleged Aadhaar discrepancy occurred
whether CCTV or other records corroborate the account
whether the voter was offered a tendered ballot
whether three or four other people experienced the same problem
or whether similar incidents occurred in Wards 43, 15 or elsewhere in Sikar.

Those questions require official records and responses from the competent election authorities.

The allegations therefore should not be treated as proof of electoral fraud unless independently established.

The question that now matters

If an eligible voter reaches a polling station and is told that somebody has already voted in his name, election procedure recognises a mechanism for dealing with precisely that situation.

The public-interest question is therefore not merely:

“Did somebody vote in his name?”

It is also:

“Once he claimed to be the genuine voter, was the prescribed procedure followed to verify him and, where applicable, allow him to cast a tendered vote?”

That question can be answered through the polling records.

Dweep Tulika will seek the response of the Rajasthan State Election Commission, the concerned Returning Officer/Presiding Officer and the district election authorities regarding the alleged incident and the procedure followed.

The allegations remain unverified unless supported by official records or other independent evidence.

Search This Blog

Dweep Tulika

“‘Someone Had Already Voted in My Name’: Sikar Voter Alleges He Was Denied Vote at Ward 45 Polling Booth”