The Credibility of the Election Commission, the watchdog of the election process in our democracy, has nosedived in the recent past. The responsibility for this lies less with the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, and more with the Commission itself, particularly in the manner it has chosen to confront allegations of irregularities in the poll process.
Perhaps this situation became inevitable after the government overruled a directive of the Supreme Court regarding the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) in March 2023.
Until then, the selection process for the CEC and ECs was not clearly defined. They were appointed by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and generally, the senior-most EC was elevated as the CEC. Over the years, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging these appointments.
The petitions were clubbed together and taken up by a five-judge bench, which felt that the appointment procedure was arbitrary. The bench observed that since the Commission was a watchdog of elections, it must remain independent of the government and ruling party influence.
It directed that appointments should be made by a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. Such a committee, it felt, would be above suspicion and would prevent favoritism. The bench clarified that this arrangement would remain in place until the government enacted a law on the matter.
A few months later, however, the government introduced a Bill in Parliament effectively overruling the Supreme Court’s directive. The Bill replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister in the three-member committee. With the Prime Minister and a Union Minister on one side and the Leader of the Opposition on the other, it was evident that the government’s nominee would prevail even if the Leader of the Opposition dissented.
The unchecked power vested in the government through this law was bound to create situations like the present one, casting a shadow over the neutrality of the Commission.
Matters worsened with the Chief Election Commissioner’s response to allegations raised by Rahul Gandhi regarding the Assembly elections in Maharashtra, irregularities in a specific segment of the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency, and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar.
A study conducted by the NGO Vote for Democracy (VFD) highlighted erratic changes in the electoral rolls between the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the November 2024 Assembly polls in Maharashtra.
In just six months, the rolls expanded by more than 46 lakh voters, concentrated across 12,000 polling booths in 85 constituencies—predominantly in areas where the BJP had lost in the parliamentary elections.
Another finding was the sudden late-night surge in turnout during the Assembly polls: at 5 p.m., turnout stood at 58.22 per cent, but by midnight it had risen to 66.05 per cent—a jump of 7.83 per cent, amounting to about 48 lakh additional votes.
The sharpest increases were recorded in Nanded, Jalgaon, Hingoli, Solapur, Beed, and Dhule, where double-digit spikes were observed, despite the fact that historically, such late surges have been minimal. The Opposition alleged that these figures “proved” irregularities had been committed to benefit the BJP-led alliance, which ultimately won the elections.
Further controversy emerged from the Mahadevspura Assembly segment, part of the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency. It was revealed that while the BJP candidate lost in seven Assembly segments, he secured an unassailable lead in one particular segment—enough to defeat the Congress candidate by 33,000 votes in the 2024 general elections. He gained a lead of 1.1 lakh votes from that single segment.
After six months of meticulous research, Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP of “vote chori” (vote theft), citing fake voters, duplications, and other serious irregularities.
A physical verification of the voters’ list revealed 11,965 duplicate voters, 40,009 voters with fake addresses, 10,452 bulk voters registered at a single address, and 4,132 voters with invalid photos.
Examples included 80 voters listed at one address, 46 voters registered in a one-room house, and 68 voters shown as residing at a brewery named 153 Biere Club in Bengaluru, though none could be found there. Shockingly, some voters were listed as living at “house number zero.”
The latest controversy involves the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. According to the Commission’s own figures, 65 lakh voters were de-franchised. It claimed these voters had either died, shifted residence, or had duplicate entries. What it did not acknowledge was that, for the first time ever, it placed the onus on voters to prove their nationality.
It refused to accept either the Voter ID card or Aadhaar card as valid proof—even if those individuals had voted in previous elections using these documents. Moreover, it gave crores of voters just about a month to re-register. The very design of the exercise appeared deeply questionable.
Rahul Gandhi further damaged the Commission’s credibility by producing individuals officially declared “dead” by it. However, it must be noted that so far he has not been able to establish a clear link showing how the exclusions benefited the BJP and its allies.
Instead of countering the allegations with facts and figures, the Commission chose a politically adversarial stance. The CEC declared that the Leader of the Opposition should either file an affidavit proving his allegations or “apologise” to the nation.
This was certainly not the most appropriate response. Someone holding such a position must not only be fair and objective but must also be perceived as fair and independent. Unfortunately, that was not the impression left by the press conference.
Notably, the CEC did not ask BJP leader Anurag Thakur to file an affidavit, even though he had made similar allegations of irregularities in constituencies represented by Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi. Such selective responses have further undermined the credibility of the institution.
The Commission must function as an independent constitutional body, as it was always perceived to be. But perhaps that is too much to expect after the enactment of the new law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
This article was originally published in Punjab News Today and can be read here.
