BJD demands rejection of disputed votes cast during March 16 RS elections

Days after the Election Commission of India (ECI) directed Odisha’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to address the grievances of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) over the alleged issuance of “double ballots” during the 2026 Rajya Sabha elections, the Naveen Patnaik-led regional party sought urgent intervention from the state election authorities, alleging grave statutory violations that, it claimed, compromised the sanctity and legality of the electoral process.

A senior delegation of the BJD, comprising former ministers and senior MLAs Prasanna Acharya, Pramila Mallik, Pratap Deb and Arun Kumar Sahoo, along with Rajya Sabha member Sasmit Patra, met CEO R S Gopalan here on Monday. They submitted an 18-page memorandum demanding immediate corrective and legal action in connection with the alleged illegal issuance of second ballot papers to two legislators during the Rajya Sabha elections on March 16.

In its representation, the party alleged that second ballot papers were unlawfully issued to Brahmagiri MLA Upasana Mohapatra and Khallikote MLA Purna Chandra Sethy after both legislators had already marked their original ballot papers during voting. The BJD contended that such issuance directly violated statutory election procedures and had materially affected the election outcome.

The memorandum submitted before the CEO stated that objections to the issuance of the second ballot papers were not raised belatedly but were recorded contemporaneously at every stage of the electoral process by candidates, polling agents, election agents, counting agents and authorised representatives of the party.

It said formal written complaints were also submitted before the returning officer in the presence of the Election Commission observer during polling itself and again before the commencement of counting, making the objections part of the official electoral record.


The BJD argued that the issuance of second ballot papers violated Rule 41 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which permits the issuance of a fresh ballot paper only if the original ballot paper has been inadvertently dealt with in such a manner that it becomes incapable of convenient use. The party maintained that the provision cannot be invoked merely to allow an elector to correct, alter or reconsider an already marked vote.

Quoting the statutory provision in its memorandum, the party argued that Rule 41 is “narrowly framed” and does not contemplate a regime where an elector, having once marked a ballot paper, may seek another opportunity simply because the marking subsequently became inconvenient or undesirable. It maintained that the rule applies strictly to genuinely “spoilt” ballots that have become unusable in law and in fact, and not to situations involving correction of voting preference.

In one of its most serious allegations, the party stated that the Election Commission observer had initially declined permission for issuance of the second ballot papers but subsequently permitted the same, raising serious questions regarding the statutory satisfaction contemplated under Rule 41.

The party also cited what it described as recorded statements made during polling, including the alleged remark, “Bhul re double marking karideli” (marked twice inadvertently), by an MLA, which, according to the memorandum, indicated that the issue arose not because the ballot paper had become physically unusable but because the elector had already marked the ballot and later sought correction.

The BJD pointed out that party president and Leader of Opposition Naveen Patnaik publicly raised objections during polling itself and subsequently escalated the matter to the Election Commission through an email sent to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on March 18. Rajya Sabha member Sasmit Patra also submitted a separate representation before the Commission on April 28 under directions from the party leadership, citing continued institutional silence despite repeated objections.

The party sought rejection of the two disputed votes allegedly cast in favour of Rajya Sabha candidate Dilip Ray and demanded that Datteswar Hota be declared elected on the basis of valid first-preference votes. The party also sought disclosure of action taken on complaints filed on March 16 and on Patnaik’s March 18 communication, besides demanding preservation and examination of all election-related records, including cancelled ballot papers, ballot accounts, CCTV footage, official videos and observer reports.

The BJD also demanded an independent, transparent and detailed inquiry into the circumstances under which the second ballot papers were issued, determination of whether Rule 41 was violated, and initiation of all consequential statutory and legal action in accordance with the law.