EC to ensure allotment of unique EPIC number to registered electors amid duplicate voter ID concerns
New Delhi: The Election Commission on Sunday clarified that electors from two different states or union territories having identical EPIC numbers does not mean there are duplicate or fake voters. The Commission explained that even if two voters share an identical EPIC number, they will still be assigned different polling booths and constituencies based on their personal details, ensuring that voters can only cast ballots in their designated areas.
The poll body mentioned in a statement that while EPIC numbers of some of the electors may be identical, the other details including demographic details, Assembly constituency and polling booth are different for the electors with the same EPIC number.
“Irrespective of the EPIC number, any elector can cast a vote only at their designated polling station in their respective constituency in the state/UT where they are enrolled in the electoral roll, and nowhere else,” the poll panel underlined.
The EC further stated that the identical EPIC numbers given to some electors from different states and union territories were a result of the “decentralized and manual mechanism” used before the electoral roll database was moved to the ERONET (Electoral Roll Management) platform.
The Commission also emphasised that any cases of duplicate EPIC numbers will be corrected, and each voter will be given a unique EPIC number moving forward. Additionally, the ERONET 2.0 platform will be updated to assist in this process.
This clarification came after the issue was raised by a Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader, who pointed out that an elector from Cooch Behar in West Bengal shared the same EPIC number with another voter from Didarganj in Uttar Pradesh. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had also alleged the presence of “fake” and “outsider” voters in the state.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
