Patna, Aug 8 The Patna administration has issued a second reminder to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and Bihar Leader of Opposition, Tejashwi Yadav, seeking clarification over possession of two different Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers, officials said on Friday.
The administration has asked the RJD leader to submit his reply by August 16.
In a letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), it was noted that Tejashwi Yadav, during a press conference on August 2, claimed his EPIC number was RAB2916120.
However, a search for the number on the Election Commission of India's website following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)-2025 did not yield any result, as the name linked to it was missing from the draft electoral roll.
The district administration said its investigation found Tejashwi Yadav's name listed in the voter roll under EPIC number RAB0456228 with serial number 416 at the Bihar Animal Sciences University's library building at polling station number 204.
This same number was mentioned in the RJD leader's affidavits for the 2015 and 2020 Assembly elections, as well as in the form submitted to the Booth Level Officer during SIR-2025.
Officials said the number RAB2916120 displayed at the press conference does not appear to have been issued by the Election Commission, and termed it "seemingly fake".
The letter warned that creating and using forged government documents is a criminal offence, and directed Tejashwi Yadav to deposit the said card with the Electoral Registration Officer by 5 p.m. on August 16.
The first reminder on the matter was sent on August 6, but Tejashwi Yadav had yet to respond by 5 p.m. on Friday, prompting a follow-up notice.
Earlier on Thursday, Tejashwi Yadav responded to the dual voter ID cards.
"We haven't received any notice from the Election Commission. What we got is from the level of the sub-divisional officer, and we're responding to that," the RJD leader clarified.
He questioned the basis of the complaint, asking: "Who issued the two EPIC numbers? The person who issued them is now asking us where they came from. The mistake is someone else's, but we are being asked to answer."
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor