Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, May 2: The Central Tibetan Administration’s Election Commission (EC) has issued a fresh directive concerning the Choejor Tibetan settlement in Nepal, effectively rolling back its earlier decision to withdraw the final election of the polling station there.
In an official communication dated May 1, 2026, from the Central Election Commission to the Choejor Local Election Officer—obtained by Phayul from a source—the apex election regulation body of the Tibetan government in exile confirmed that the final election in Choejor settlement will proceed. The notice further stated that an additional regional election officer has been appointed for the constituency under the direct supervision of the Kathmandu Local Election Officer and in the presence of members of the local election committee and designated witnesses.
The EC also clarified that the assistant regional election officer appointed during the preliminary phase—who oversaw the earlier voting process—will not be required to serve in that capacity for the upcoming final round.
This development follows a highly contentious decision issued on April 23, when the EC announced the withdrawal of the final election process for the Choejor polling station—covering areas such as Boudha and Jorpati—citing multiple “serious violations” of electoral rules during the preliminary stage of voting.
According to the EC’s findings, the preliminary elections in Choejor were marred by widespread irregularities. Investigations—conducted remotely due to logistical limitations—reviewed ballot papers, official records, and testimonies from local stakeholders. These revealed systemic violations, including instances of multiple voting by individual voters, with reports of some individuals casting anywhere between 10 to 100 ballots.
Further scrutiny revealed numerous ballots that appeared to be written in identical handwriting, suggesting potential manipulation. In clear violation of electoral procedures mandating same-day voting, ballots were reportedly distributed to households and community groups and collected days later.
Additional breaches included the absence of procedural safeguards, such as cases where a single committee member was responsible for both distributing and collecting ballots. Ballots lacking proper candidate identification or containing inconsistent entries were counted. In some instances, individual ballots displayed multiple handwriting styles, while a voter based in the United States was allegedly allowed to vote across multiple constituencies.
The EC, taking into account the malpractice during the preliminary phase, stated that such violations had fundamentally compromised the election, rendering it impossible to guarantee a free, fair, and secret ballot. The findings were particularly significant given that alleged rigged votes during the preliminary round had delivered a decisive mandate to the incumbent President, Penpa Tsering, who secured over 61% of the vote—effectively eliminating the need for a runoff in the final election round.
However, the local Election Commissioner of Choejor settlement strongly refuted the allegations. Across three separate inquiries, the official maintained that the elections were conducted in accordance with established rules. Addressing concerns over similar handwriting on ballots, the local election commissioner attributed this to the settlement’s demographic composition, noting that nearly 60% of residents are monks or former monks trained under the same teacher, which could account for the uniformity in writing styles.
The EC’s latest notice signals a complete U-turn of its earlier stance, possibly due to strong backlash from observers and the public. The timeline for conducting the final election in the Choejor polling station remains unclear. Phayul’s repeated phone calls to reach Chief Election Commissioner Lobsang Yeshi, went unanswered.
The Election Commission’s initial decision to withdraw the final vote was not just a procedural error, it struck at the core of democratic rights. The right to vote is fundamental, and taking it away should only happen under the most clear, transparent, and proportionate circumstances. In this case, the justification appears inconsistent and insufficient to warrant such a drastic step.
For example, while the EC cited irregularities like similar handwriting on ballots, the local commissioner offered a plausible explanation rooted in the settlement’s demographics, many residents share the same monastic education, which could naturally lead to similar writing styles. Dismissing this without thorough, on-ground verification raises concerns about whether due diligence was truly exercised. Similarly, allegations of multiple voting and procedural lapses, though serious, should have led to targeted corrective measures, such as re-polling under strict supervision rather than a blanket withdrawal that disenfranchised the entire community.
In any democratic system, when irregularities occur, the solution is to strengthen the process, not suspend people’s rights. Around the world, even in cases of proven electoral fraud, authorities typically order re-elections or impose tighter controls rather than canceling participation altogether. By initially halting the final vote, the EC effectively punished all voters for the alleged actions of a few, which contradicts the principle of fair representation.
The later reversal of the decision further exposes the weakness of the original judgment. If the situation could be remedied by appointing additional officers and ensuring oversight, those steps should have been taken from the beginning instead of denying people their voice. Such flip-flops risk eroding public confidence and create the impression of arbitrariness in decision-making.
Ultimately, democratic institutions derive legitimacy from consistency, transparency, and respect for citizens’ rights. Any action that appears to curtail voting rights on a “meager excuse” not only undermines those principles but also sets a troubling precedent for future electoral processes.