In Booth 164 of West Bengal’s Rajarhat New Town, the assembly election result has sparked questions among local residents, opposition leaders and political workers. When Alt News visited the constituency and spoke to voters, several of them described the result as absurd and impossible.
The CPI(M)-ISF alliance candidate Saptarshi Deb received just one vote from Booth 164. TMC candidate Tapash Chatterjee secured five votes, while BJP candidate Piyush Kanodia, who won the seat, got 637 of the 656 votes polled.
Booths 164 and 165 are located in a locality known as Musalman Para, a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. In the neighbouring Booth 165, which draws voters from the same locality and, in many cases, even from the same families, Kanodia received 32 votes, compared to Deb’s 299 and Chatterjee’s 290. In sharp contrast, in 164, where 88% of the electors are Muslims, BJP polled 97% of the votes.
Locals told Alt News that the result of Booth 164 was difficult to reconcile with the area’s political and demographic profile.
The Extra Round of Counting that Flipped the Result
The results for New Town were declared on May 5, a day after the rest of West Bengal’s election results.
The results were mired in controversy from the very beginning as the seat underwent 18 rounds of counting instead of the pre-notified 17 rounds. There were a total of 330 polling stations in the constituency, including 10 auxiliary booths. Each counting round was supposed to consist of the tallying of 20 EVMs. Accordingly, candidates expected 17 rounds of counting — 16 rounds involving 20 EVMs each and a final round involving the remaining 10 EVMs.
Why did the need for an extra round of counting arise?
The 18th round can be linked to 52 additional votes being recorded on the EVM at Booth 164 on the polling day. There, voting was suspended for nearly two hours after polling agents noticed that the EVM displayed 52 more votes than had actually been cast.
A polling agent told Alt News that although the EVM showed zero votes after mock poll (conducted before voting began), it was unclear whether the VVPAT slips for the mock votes had been removed. The agents from multiple political parties jointly submitted a written request seeking a VVPAT count for Booth 164. This was Round 18.
Until Round 17 of counting, BJP candidate Piyush Kanodia was trailing TMC’s Tapash Chatterjee. However, the counting of Booth 164 at the very end dramatically altered the outcome.
The 18th and final round (for Booth 164) showed 656 votes. Of these, Kanodia secured 637 votes, Chatterjee received five votes, and Deb received a single vote. The same figures are reflected in Form 20.
In other words, the result of Booth 164 directly determined the outcome of the constituency. At 11 pm on May 4, Chatterjee was leading by 316 votes, with one booth yet to be counted. After the 18th and final round, which covered only Booth 164, the lead reversed entirely, and Kanodia won by exactly 316 votes.
‘Where Did Our Votes Go?’
The unusual result was first highlighted by Scroll in a report published on May 21.
When Alt News visited Musalman Para, local residents expressed bewilderment at the outcome and went on record about whom they had voted for. Among them were CPI(M) panchayat members and active ISF workers. If the final result of Booth 164 is to be believed, they voted en masse for the BJP.
“That is simply not true. Then where did our votes go?” several residents asked.
Locals told Alt News that because of an increase in the number of electors, the original polling station had been divided into two auxiliary booths — Booths 164 and 165. Voters from the same neighbourhood were distributed between the two booths without any obvious pattern. In several instances, even members of the same family found themselves assigned to different booths.
One resident, Ruksana Begum, said she voted at Booth 165 while her 25-year-old son, Sahinur, voted at Booth 164. Alt News encountered several such examples during its visit.
“We cannot fathom how the BJP secured so many votes from our booth. Something certainly appears unusual,” one resident said.
Ahmed Ali Mondol, a two-time elected CPI(M) panchayat member representing the Jagadishpur area, which covers Booths 164 and 165, said that he and eight members of his family had voted at Booth 164 in favour of the CPI(M)-ISF alliance.
“My family members and I all voted from Booth 164 for the alliance candidate. But the results show only one vote from the booth. Where did our votes go?” Mondol asked.
Another local CPI(M) supporter, Ashraf Ali, said the results defied logic, particularly given the stark contrast between two adjacent booths populated by residents of the same locality.
Referring to the official figures, Ali said, “In Booth 165, the CPI(M) was leading by nine votes, whereas in Booth 164, the party received only one vote. I cannot understand how such a difference is possible.”
Ali added that while he voted at Booth 165, his wife voted at Booth 164.
Asked whether he was certain that his wife had voted for the CPI(M) candidate, he replied, “Of course. We are CPI(M) supporters.”
“Where did all these votes go?” he wondered. Ali further argued that if the CPI(M)-ISF alliance could secure a lead in Booth 165, then Booth 164 should also have reflected substantial support for the alliance.
“The BJP stood no chance here. The real contest has always been between the CPI(M) and the TMC,” he claimed.
Echoing similar concerns, local resident and ISF leader Akhtar Ali Mollah said that he, along with at least eight members of his family, had voted for the CPI(M)-ISF alliance candidate from Booth 164.
“How could the candidate receive only one vote from this booth?” Mollah asked. “It is not just my family of eight and me. There are several party workers in the area and our booth as well. Where did all of our votes go?”
Ramzan Ali, a local resident and polling agent for Booth 164, said that he, his wife and their two daughters had all voted at the booth.
“I personally voted for CPI(M) at Booth 164, and my family members did the same,” Ali stated.
Asked whether he believed the BJP could have secured such overwhelming support from the booth, he replied, “Absolutely not. I don’t believe the BJP could have amassed such a large number of votes from that booth.”
Mokshed Mondol, a TMC booth president, said he could not explain the outcome and described the result as “shocking” and “unbelievable”.
“I do not know what exactly happened,” he said. “The results are definitely shocking.”
Mondol said seven members of his family were eligible voters. Of them, only one was assigned to Booth 164, while the others voted at Booth 165. He maintained that all seven had voted for the TMC.
Mondol acknowledged the limits of certainty regarding individual voting behaviour.
“We can never truly know what people are thinking. Some of them may have voted for one party and claimed something else. Still, the result of Booth 164 is absurd,” he said.
Alt News visited the BJP party office in the locality and asked how the party polled 98% votes in an overwhelmingly Muslim-dominated booth.
People Voted for Us. Results Speak for Themselves, Says BJP
Workers present at the BJP office told Alt News that only the MLA could answer these questions. One of them, Shubho Naskar, said, “Why don’t you look into how TMC won the seat in 2021?”
Though Naskar did not elaborate, he appeared to suggest that the TMC had won the constituency through manipulation in the previous election.
Alt News spoke to MLA Piyush Kanodia over phone. We asked him what he thought of a Muslim-majority booth voting overwhelmingly for BJP. He said, “Why should I have any thoughts about this? People voted for us. We are not saying that. The results speak for themselves.”
Alt News also asked residents about BJP campaign activity in the locality. Residents said they had not witnessed any significant BJP campaigning. According to them, BJP candidate Piyush Kanodia did not visit the area either before the election or after winning.
Mollah, Ali and Mondol confirmed this account.
‘The Entire Counting Process Was Murky’
Speaking to Alt News, CPI(M)-ISF candidate Saptarshi Deb recounted the sequence of events surrounding the counting process.
Votes for three constituencies — Bidhannagar, New Town-Gopalpur and New Town-Rajarhat — were counted at the same centre.
“Things were going smoothly initially. I saw that after 17 rounds, Tapash Chatterjee was leading. No one else ever led according to the Election Commission data. Initially the lead was quite large, then it kept narrowing. But it never completely reversed,” Deb said.
According to him, at one point information spread inside the counting centre that the TMC government might fall, leaving Trinamool counting agents demoralised. Many of them reportedly left the centre, leaving behind only the candidate and a few senior leaders seated at the Returning Officer’s table.
Deb said that a commotion followed and that both the BJP and TMC candidates were eventually asked to leave the counting centre and wait in the lobby. They were later allowed back in.
Deb left the counting centre around 11 pm on May 4. At approximately 12:30 am, after checking the Election Commission website, he discovered that the number of counting rounds had increased from 17 to 18. Even then, according to him, the TMC candidate remained ahead.
“The next morning, I got a call from the office of the BDO saying that there was a recount happening. I went, but I couldn’t enter.” When we asked why, he said, “They (officials) were not allowing anyone to go in on the second day… I am sure that the BJP candidate was inside… His car was parked outside, and later we saw videos of him coming out of the counting centre with the winning certificate. The Trinamool candidate was not present.”
Excerpts from Alt News’s conversation with Deb can be heard here:
When we asked him about the specifics of the recounting process, he said, “I do not know. No notification was provided to me, as a candidate, or my agents. We only got to know about it over a phone call, that too in the morning. I left at 11pm the previous night. Even if the decision regarding the recounting had been taken at 2 am, then all the candidates should have been informed. The candidates would have to let their counting agents know… I should have been able to bring all my 50 counting agents with me… Why did it happen in such a hush-hush manner?”
“Who requested the recounting? BJP is saying that TMC requested it, and TMC is saying BJP requested it.” When asked how many rounds were recounted, Deb told us, “I think they had decided that they would count the last 2-3 rounds. I don’t know for sure. But what I gathered from my sources was that they would recount the last three rounds (15th, 16th and 17th).”
“What also bothers me was that candidates are supposed to receive their Form 20 within two days, but we did not.” Deb said.
“When I called two days later, I was told, ‘We haven’t received instructions to give it out yet.”
As the district secretary of DYFI, Deb said he was aware that candidates in other constituencies had already received their Form 20 documents.
Upon insisting, the Returning Officer asked him to wait another two to three days. According to Deb, the document was made available almost two weeks after the results.
Speaking specifically about Booth 164, Deb said, “I can’t tell you what kind of manipulation happened here. But this is a booth where we led even in the panchayat elections. Demographically, too, it seems unlikely that it would overwhelmingly favour the BJP.”
Deb, the son of former Bengal minister and CPI(M) stalwart Goutam Deb, said there were important questions that remained unanswered and could be key to understanding the unusual result thrown up by the constituency.
First, who demanded the recount, how many rounds were recounted, and why was no official documentation provided?
Second, in a predominantly minority booth, how did the BJP secure such an overwhelming share of the votes?
And third, why was Form 20 for the constituency made available so late?
When we asked Saptarshi Deb whether his party would challenge the result, “I don’t know if there is anything to do. We are waiting to see if TMC does anything… If this were the Panchayat elections, then I would have taken it to the highest level of the judiciary. But since this is an assembly election where my vote share is not that high… I am trying to speak to media persons. I want this issue to be highlighted nationally…”
When we mentioned to Kanodia that his political opponents were alleging manipulation in counting, the BJP MLA said that they were “living in a fool’s paradise”. He also categorically refuted the allegation by Deb that only Kanodia was allowed inside the counting centre during recounting on May 5.
Alt News has written to the Election Commission of India and the chief electoral officer, West Bengal, asking for details of the recounting in the Rajarhat New Town constituency and seeking responses to the allegations levelled by locals and the CPI(M) candidate. This report will be updated if we hear back from them.
