The controversy began after discrepancies and mismatches were flagged in Uttar Pradesh’s electoral rolls. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh shared a video of party leader Rajesh Yadav questioning the Election Commission of India (ECI) over an unusual name appearing in the voter list.
In his post on X, Singh endorsed Yadav’s question to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar: “Why did Ram kill only a ‘Yadav’? Why did Ram not kill a Singh, Pathak, Asthana, Sharma, Rai or Bisht? Is your computer deeply casteist? Are you running the agenda of a political party?”
The post questioned how the name had appeared in the electoral roll and whether the discrepancy reflected a problem with the system. Singh described Yadav’s question as justified.
ज्ञानेश कुमार जी आख़िर राम ने “यादव” को ही क्यों मारा?
राम ने किसी सिंह,पाठक,अस्थाना,शर्मा,राय,बिष्ट को क्यों नही मारा?
आपका कंप्यूटर घोर जातिवादी है क्या?
क्या आप किसी पार्टी का एजेंडा चला रहे हैं? @rajeshyadavaap का जायज़ सवाल। https://t.co/XzaYVoMCEe— Sanjay Singh AAP (@SanjayAzadSln) October 25, 2026
UP CEO’s post introduces a communal reference
In response to the controversy surrounding the name, the official X handle (@ceoup) of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Uttar Pradesh, acknowledged that an error had occurred in the electoral roll for a recent Legislative Council election. However, the post went beyond the error itself and referred to both caste and religion.
The post stated that the name “Ram ne Sharma ko maara” (Ram killed Sharma) was an unusual entry in the electoral roll. It said that computers and software were not casteist and acknowledged that a mistake had been made, adding that the error had not discriminated based on caste.
It then said that “the authorities were fortunate that Ram had not killed a person from a minority community; otherwise, they would have been accused of being communal as well as casteist”.
The remark drew criticism because it introduced a reference to a minority community into a discussion about an electoral roll error. The post was published through the official handle of the state’s chief electoral officer, prompting questions about the language used by an election authority.
हालिया विधान परिषद के चुनाव की मतदाता सूची में एक अजीबोगरीब नाम “राम ने शर्मा को मारा” भी है। कंप्यूटर/सॉफ्टवेयर जातिवादी नहीं है। हमारे द्वारा गलती किया जाना स्वीकार है लेकिन हमारे सौभाग्य से गलती होते समय भी जाति का भेदभाव नहीं हुआ है। भगवान का यह भी शुक्र है की राम ने किसी अल्पसंख्यक को नहीं मारा है। नहीं तो जातिवादी होने के साथ-साथ सांप्रदायिक होने का इल्ज़ाम भी लगता।
— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 25, 2026
CEO says Election Commission has issued instructions
The post spread across social media and drew criticism for the communal reference made from the official handle. The remarks also came amid allegations of targeted deletion of Muslim voters from electoral rolls.
Congress leader Supriya Shrinate questioned who was operating the official handle, writing that the authorities had little credibility left and that the account itself was undermining whatever remained.
Link:
इस हैंडल को कौन चला रहा है @ceoup
वैसे भी कोई खास विश्वसनीयता आप लोगों की बच नहीं है
जो थोड़ा बहुत भ्रम है – वो यह हैंडल अकेले निपटाए दे रहा है!
— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) October 26, 2026
Responding to her criticism, the CEO Uttar Pradesh handle stated that the “Instructions have been issued by the Election Commission of India to use measured language in every matter and limit communication to facts without unnecessary comments.”
The response did not clarify who had drafted or approved the original post, whether the officials responsible had been identified, or whether any action had been taken. At this stage, the handle had not issued an apology.
प्रत्येक मामले में संयत भाषा का प्रयोग करते हुए बिना अनावश्यक टिप्पणी के केवल तथ्यों तक ही अपनी बात सीमित रखने के निर्देश भारत निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा दे दिए गए हैं ।
— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 26, 2026
CEO Uttar Pradesh apologises after criticism
Following the criticism, the CEO Uttar Pradesh handle issued an apology, acknowledging that the language, tone and sharpness of the earlier post were not in keeping with the communication expected from an official account.
The statement said that the anger caused by the remarks had been noted and offered a sincere apology to those who were shocked and upset. It also said that future communication would be restrained and formal.
However, the apology did not clarify who had drafted or approved the original post, whether the officials responsible had been identified, or whether any action had been taken against them.
इस हैंडल के उद्धृत पोस्ट में टिप्पणियों की भाषा के स्तर और भाव और इनकी तीखी प्रकृति इस आधिकारिक हैंडल से अपेक्षित संचार की प्रकृति के अनुरूप नहीं है। पोस्ट में टिप्पणियों से उत्पन्न वास्तविक आक्रोश को अच्छी तरह से नोट किया गया है। हम इससे अचंभित और नाराज़ लोगों से ईमानदारी से माफी मांगते हैं। अब से हमारा संचार शालीन और औपचारिक होगा।
— CEO Uttar Pradesh (@ceoup) October 27, 2026
The original post also remained available on the official handle, with no public explanation for why it had not been removed.
Who is responsible for the post?
The apology and the assurance of more formal communication leave several questions unanswered. Who manages the CEO Uttar Pradesh’s official X handle? Who drafted and authorised the post referring to caste and a minority community? Has the Election Commission identified those responsible, and has any action been taken?
The authorities have also not publicly explained why the original post remains online despite the apology and the criticism it attracted.
The controversy began with questions about discrepancies in the electoral roll. It then shifted to the language used by the state’s chief electoral officer’s official handle. While the apology acknowledged that the post did not meet the standards expected of an official account, it did not address responsibility for its publication.
Will the Election Commission clarify who was responsible for the post and what action, if any, has been taken? Until then, the questions surrounding the official handle remain unanswered.
Related:
SIR Karnataka: Six major ‘conspiracies’ exposed in the final electoral roll
EXCLUSIVE – SIR: The total disenfranchisement of the Indian Voter is 16 crores, not 13.60 Crores?