While the political focus in the recently concluded Zila Parishad elections in Punjab’s Hoshiarpur district has largely remained on party performance and seat tallies, a closer examination of the final counting figures reveals a quieter but significant trend — the large number of rejected ballots and NOTA votes recorded across the district.
According to the Final Counting Report of the Zila Parishad elections, 4,41,915 cumulative votes were polled across 25 Zila Parishad zones in the district. Of these, 14,473 votes were rejected, while 2,817 voters exercised the NOTA (None of the Above) option. Taken together, 17,290 votes failed to add to the tally of any contesting candidate — a number large enough to warrant scrutiny in a grassroots democratic exercise.
The Zila Parishad elections in Punjab were held on December 14, with the counting held on December 17. The entire process was conducted manually, due to the absence of electronic voting machines (EVMs). Ballot papers were printed, featuring the symbols of candidates from various parties. As a result, officials reported that many voters encountered difficulties in casting their votes correctly, as some voters’ impressions inadvertently touched more than one symbol.
In several zones, the number of rejected votes exceeded the winning margin, underlining how procedural lapses and voter confusion may have directly influenced electoral outcomes.
The most striking example comes from Panam, where the winning candidate secured victory by a margin of 646 votes, while the constituency recorded 1,011 rejected ballots, far surpassing the margin of victory. Here, the number of NOTA votes was 373.
An even narrower contest was witnessed in Hardokhanpur, where the seat was decided by a slender margin of just 15 votes. However, the constituency reported 377 rejected votes, making the rejected ballots more than 25 times the winning margin. The seat also saw 99 NOTA votes, again well above the victory gap.
In Hajipur, the outcome was decided by a margin of 201 votes, but the number of rejected votes stood at 1,440, making it one of the highest rejected vote counts in the district. The figures indicate that the rejected ballots alone were nearly seven times the winning margin.
In Amroh, the winning margin was 113 votes, while the number of rejected votes was 631, and NOTA votes numbered 79. Similarly, in Jaja, the winning margin was 263 votes, while the number of rejected votes was 428, and NOTA votes were 108.
Even in constituencies where the winners enjoyed comparatively comfortable leads, the volume of rejected votes remained notably high, indicating that the issue was widespread rather than limited to closely fought seats.
In Binewal, the winning margin was 1,035 votes, while 521 votes were rejected.
Saila Khurd recorded 579 rejected votes, against a victory margin of 2,522 votes. In Tuto Majara, 739 ballots were rejected, while the margin of victory stood at 1,764 votes. Similarly, Bhunga saw 644 rejected votes, with a winning margin of 1,661 votes.
Across all 25 zones, the number of rejected votes ranged between 238 votes and 1,440 votes, while the number of NOTA votes ranged between 53 votes and 373 votes.
These figures suggest that even where results were not directly overturned by rejected ballots, a sizeable section of voters failed to successfully register a valid choice.
The NOTA option, though not decisive in determining winners, emerged as a consistent indicator of voter dissatisfaction across multiple constituencies.
Apart from Hardokhanpur, where NOTA votes exceeded the winning margin, Binewal registered 166 NOTA votes. Tuto Majara registered 310 votes under NOTA, Bhunga recorded 147 NOTA votes, Saila Khurd saw 129, and Barian Kalan registered 89 NOTA votes.
While these numbers did not alter the outcomes, they reflect a segment of the electorate consciously opting out of the available choices.
Election observers and local political workers point out that rejected ballots in rural body elections are often linked to the manual voting process, ballot design, voter unfamiliarity with symbols, and procedural errors during polling.
Unlike Assembly or Parliamentary elections, Zila Parishad polls use a different ballot format, often confusing voters — particularly the elderly, less-literate voters and first-time participants. Multiple symbols, incorrect stamping, or marking beyond the designated area are among the most common reasons for rejection.
A senior poll officer, requesting anonymity, said the cumulative impact of over 17,000 votes not translating into representation has renewed calls for simplifying the voting process, better voter education campaigns, clearer ballot instructions, and enhanced training for polling staff, especially at the rural level, where these institutions play a crucial governance role.
“The combination of high rejected ballots and consistent NOTA voting suggests that a significant number of voters either struggled with the voting process or consciously chose not to endorse any candidate,” a senior election officer said, adding that such a trend has been seen almost all over the state.
Similar trends were observed in Nawanshahr, Kapurthala, and Jalandhar Zila Parishad elections, where the number of rejected votes remained high.
For instance, in Nawanshahr, rejected votes ranged from 405 to 1,230 across all 10 zones, though none of the zones witnessed a winning margin lower than the rejected votes. The NOTA votes in Nawanshahr ranged between 29 and 563.
As Zila Parishads form the backbone of district-level rural governance, these figures serve as a reminder that strengthening and simplifying electoral processes is as important as counting votes, election officers said.
