A startling case of voter fraud has surfaced in West Bengal amid the Election Commission’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. A Bangladeshi man residing in the state for over three decades has confessed to misusing the identity of his father-in-law to secure an Indian voter ID card, a revelation that has ignited tension in Shrirampur under the Rajapur Police Station limits.
Mohammad Khalil Molla, who migrated from Bangladesh 35 years ago, admitted openly that he used the name of his wife’s father in the section meant for his own father while applying for his Indian voter identity card. “I got my voter card in 2023. I am not Indian; I have come from Bangladesh. I used my father-in-law’s name in the section of my father’s name to make the card,” he said, triggering immediate concern among residents and local authorities.
According to locals, Molla initially lived in Topsia before shifting to Howrah, then Amta, and finally settling in Shrirampur in Uluberia, where the discovery of his fraudulent documentation has caused a stir.
Second Case Emerges
The incident has not remained isolated. In another complaint raised by residents, a man identified as Seikh Rezaul Mondal is also accused of using the name of his father-in-law, Iqbal Mondal, as his own father’s name to obtain a voter ID. His actual father is reportedly named Iklas Mondal.
When confronted, his wife appeared unsure of the discrepancies, stating, “What can we do? I don’t know whether my father and my husband’s father is same in voter card or not,” signalling the confusion or complicity within households regarding such identity manipulation.
These back-to-back revelations have heightened fears over the presence of ineligible voters on the rolls at a time when the state is witnessing an unprecedented electoral verification exercise.
SIR Exercise Underway
The Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, launched on June 24, is currently in full swing across West Bengal. Designed to update and sanitise the voter list, the SIR seeks to include all eligible citizens while removing those who are ineligible, including deceased voters, migrants, duplicate entries, and foreign nationals.
This is the first such large-scale revision since 2002, and voters are reportedly being asked to match their identity details with records dating back to the 2002 voter list. Those unable to provide such documentation must produce alternative proof of eligibility from that period, a requirement that has triggered widespread uncertainty.
Residents in several districts, including Shrirampur, have expressed fear about whether their names will remain on the rolls, whether their existing documents will be accepted, and whether applying under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) will affect their voting rights.
Political Stakes Rise as Parties Respond
The revelation of Bangladeshi infiltration into voter rolls comes at a time of heightened political sensitivity. The ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) has claimed that the SIR exercise could disproportionately affect the Matua community, largely comprising Hindu refugees, whose names may not appear in the revised lists due to gaps in legacy documentation. The party has alleged that such omissions could jeopardise not only voting rights but access to welfare schemes.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on the other hand, has launched nearly 700 CAA assistance camps across the state to reassure Hindu refugee communities that their citizenship and voting rights are protected. Party leaders have argued that fraudulent cases like Molla’s and Mondal’s highlight the need for stricter verification and a transparent SIR process.
The twin cases of misuse of identity documents have intensified scrutiny of the SIR and exposed vulnerabilities in the electoral ecosystem. As police investigate the incidents and the Election Commission continues its verification drive, the political atmosphere in Bengal remains charged, with both ruling and opposition parties treating the SIR process as a decisive referendum on citizenship legitimacy and voter eligibility.
Comments