Cyber fraudsters posing as Election Commission officials are allegedly exploiting electoral roll corrections and voter verification procedures to cheat citizens, with several cases reported in Pune and Mumbai since August. The frauds involve calls, WhatsApp messages, suspicious links and purported verification forms, with victims losing lakhs of rupees through unauthorised banking transactions. The cases have raised questions about how fraudsters obtain voters’ personal information and whether similar complaints are connected.
In one of the latest cases, a 79-year-old Pune resident allegedly lost ₹11.92 lakh after being contacted by a person posing as an election official regarding a request to correct his partner’s name on the electoral roll. According to an FIR registered at Swargate Police Station on October 9, the complainant had submitted an online form a few days earlier to change his partner’s name in the voter list. He subsequently received WhatsApp messages and calls concerning the application.
On October 7, the complainant received a WhatsApp call from a person who told him that Form 8, rather than Form 6, was required for correction. Believing the caller, the complainant shared personal information, including Aadhaar details, his partner’s voter ID, photograph and email address. The caller then asked him to pay ₹5 as a processing fee. The complainant attempted to make the payment twice through his Punjab National Bank account, but both attempts reportedly failed.
When the complainant later checked his account balance, he noticed that money was missing. A subsequent visit to the bank revealed that two NEFT transactions of ₹4,99,011 and ₹6,93,011 had been carried out without his consent, resulting in a total loss of ₹11,92,022. He had already lodged a complaint on the national cybercrime portal on October 7.
Swargate Police registered FIR No. 349/2026 under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to cheating and cheating by personation, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, relating to identity theft and cheating by personation using computer resources. The FIR names an unidentified accused, while the investigation has been assigned to Police Sub-Inspector Nikhita Ramdas Pawar.
What is election-related cyber fraud?
Unlike electoral fraud involving manipulation of votes or election results, these cases involve cybercriminals misusing the identity of election authorities and legitimate electoral procedures to deceive citizens into revealing personal or financial information.
Fraudsters allegedly contact individuals claiming to represent the Election Commission of India or election-related verification authorities. They may inform recipients that their voter ID contains incorrect information, that their name requires verification, or that their electoral roll application has been rejected.
The communication often refers to genuine electoral procedures, including Form 8, which is used to correct entries in electoral rolls, or the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. By referring to official processes, the callers attempt to make their requests appear credible.
How does the scam work?
The reported cases suggest several variations of the same broad technique.
In some instances, victims receive calls or WhatsApp messages asking them to update their electoral details. They may be directed to suspicious websites, sent links to purported verification forms or asked to download applications that appear to be associated with election authorities.
These links or applications may be used to collect personal information, obtain access to a victim’s device or facilitate unauthorised banking activity. In certain cases, fraudsters also demand a nominal processing fee, sometimes as little as ₹5, ostensibly to complete the verification.
Such small payments can make the request appear routine. However, the precise method by which money is subsequently withdrawn may differ from case to case. In the Swargate incident, the FIR does not establish how the accused authorised the two NEFT transactions or whether the complainant had accessed a fraudulent website.
Similar cases reported in Pune and Mumbai
The Swargate case is not the first such complaint reported in Pune. In another case registered at Mundhwa Police Station on October 10, a 78-year-old man allegedly lost approximately ₹8 lakh after receiving a message purportedly from the Election Commission regarding an error in his father’s name during the SIR process.
The victim was reportedly directed to a fraudulent correction form, following which the accused allegedly gained remote access to his mobile phone and obtained banking information.
Similar complaints were reported in Pune during August. A Pashan resident allegedly lost ₹3.40 lakh after receiving a fraudulent message concerning the rejection of an SIR application. In Karvenagar, another complainant reportedly lost ₹4.43 lakh through a similar pretext, while a Wadgaon Budruk resident allegedly lost ₹4.98 lakh after being targeted through purported voter verification applications and a processing-fee request.
Mumbai has also witnessed such complaints. In August, a Deonar resident reportedly lost ₹17 lakh after being contacted by a person impersonating an Election Commission official and being directed to a malicious application in the name of SIR verification.
Although these incidents share similarities, there is currently no confirmed evidence that they were carried out by the same accused or an organised network.
Why are electoral procedures being used as a pretext?
Electoral roll corrections and verification exercises involve citizens submitting or confirming personal details. Fraudsters appear to be exploiting this familiarity with official documentation by presenting their communications as part of an administrative process.
References to incorrect names, rejected applications, or pending verification can also create urgency, particularly when recipients believe that failure to respond could affect their electoral registration.
However, the available information does not establish whether the fraudsters obtained victims’ details from official electoral databases, fraudulent websites, publicly available information or other sources.
The Swargate case is particularly significant because the complainant had submitted an online correction request before receiving the suspicious communications. Whether the original application was submitted through an official portal or a fraudulent website remains unclear.
What remains under investigation?
A central question is whether the cases reported across Pune and Mumbai are isolated incidents involving similar methods or part of a wider operation.
Investigators would need to examine the phone numbers, suspicious links, applications, receiving bank accounts and transaction trails to establish any connections.
The cases also raise questions about how banking credentials were compromised and whether personal information associated with electoral applications was obtained through phishing or other means.
There is, however, no established evidence at present of a breach of the Election Commission’s official databases.
How can citizens protect themselves?
Citizens seeking corrections to electoral records should use the Election Commission’s official Voters’ Services Portal at voters.eci.gov.in or approach their local electoral registration authorities.
Form 8 is the prescribed form for corrections to electoral-roll entries and certain other electoral services. Citizens should independently verify any communication claiming to be from an election official rather than relying on links or payment instructions received through unsolicited calls or messages.
They should avoid downloading unfamiliar APK files, granting remote access to their phones, or sharing banking credentials, OTPs and other sensitive financial information with unknown callers.
Anyone who suspects financial cyber fraud should immediately contact their bank and report the incident through the national cybercrime helpline, 1930, or the official portal at cybercrime.gov.in.
