'EC should soon conduct an inquiry to not only protect its own reputation but also the people’s trust in democracy.'
On 7 August, Rahul Gandhi levelled a serious allegation against the Election Commission of India— that it was failing in fulfilling its primary constitutional duty of conducting free and fair elections in the world’s largest democracy.
Gandhi’s “vote chori” allegations has had the poll body in a churn since then.
In a press conference, Gandhi claimed that over one lakh fake voters were found in Mahadevapura Assembly segment of Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency in Karnataka. He argued that these fake voters contributed to the BJP’s victory from the Bangalore Central seat in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections even though the party trailed Congress in the other seven Assembly segments.
“If the EC shares digital voter rolls, we can prove that similar fraud happened in 70-100 Lok Sabha seats,” Gandhi claimed, accusing the poll body of evading questions and suppressing data by not releasing digitally-readable electoral rolls and deleting CCTV footage.
In response, EC issued a notice to Gandhi asking him to substantiate his claims of voter fraud under oath. However, experts told The Quint that “these rules do not apply to complaints such as the one made by Gandhi.”
In this story, we speak to former Chief Election Commissioner OP Rawat, and Founder Member of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) Jagdeep Chhokar on what the rules dictate and what should be EC’s future course of action on complaints of large scale voter fraud.
'Sign Declaration': State CEOs to Rahul Gandhi
In the 7 August presser, Rahul Gandhi claimed that in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment, there were:
- 11,965 cases of duplicate voters;
- 40,009 cases of fake addresses;
- 10,452 cases of bulk voters at a single address;
- 4,132 cases of indistinguishable voter ID photos; and
- 33,692 cases of misusing Form 6, which is for first-time voters.
Gandhi asked the Congress government in Karnataka to investigate these 1,00,250 cases of fraudulent voters even as he accused EC of colluding with the BJP.
The Big Points
Gandhi's AllegationsClaims over one lakh fake voters in a Karnataka constituency potentially swayed the Lok Sabha election result
EC's ResponseElection Commission challenged Gandhi to substantiate his voter fraud claims under oath
Experts' OpinionsSpecialists question the relevance of electoral rules to the situation, suggesting they don't apply to Gandhi's type of complaint
EC's DiscretionVarying responses from state CEOs indicate the EC has discretion on addressing allegations of voter fraud
In response, the Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka issued a notice to Gandhi the same day, asking him to sign a Declaration under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 along with the names of ineligible voters “so that necessary proceedings can be initiated.”
Gandhi responded by saying that he had "taken oath inside the Parliament holding the Constitution," news agency PTI reported.
‘Rules Don’t Apply in This Situation’
Rule 20 relates to inquiry into claims of and objections to including or deleting names in an electoral roll. It states that the registration officer shall hold a summary inquiry into every claim or objection in respect of which notice has been given.
During such an inquiry, under Rule 20(3), the registration officer may, in their discretion, require:
a) any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before them
b) that the evidence tendered by any person shall be given on oath and administer an oath for the purpose
“But these rules don’t apply in this situation. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha has pointed out large-scale discrepancies in electoral data based on research done by his team. Besides, these rules are irrelevant as the allegations haven’t come after a revision exercise,” ADR’s Jagdeep Chhokar told The Quint.
Rules dictate that these claims/objections can be filed by electors seeking their names to be included, deleted, corrected or transposed from the electoral roll using Forms 6, 7, 8 and 8-A respectively. In addition, such claims can be filed within 30 days of publishing the draft electoral rolls during an intensive revision exercise.
‘Discretion of the Election Commission’
Soon after Gandhi’s allegations, the Chief Electoral Officers of Maharashtra, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh too sprung into action, demanding that Gandhi signed a declaration to substantiate his claims.
The notices also mentioned that “election results can only be questioned by way of an Election Petition filed before a High Court.”
Chhokar explained, “As per the Representation of People Act, 1951, an election petition can be filed either by a candidate who lost the election or a voter of the said constituency within 45 days of the election results. In this case, Gandhi’s complaint pertains to another candidate so there is no question of him filing an election petition.”
Meanwhile, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Uttar Pradesh issued a response saying Gandhi’s allegations regarding UP were incorrect. But neither did it invoke Rule 20(3)(b) nor did it seek any documents.
“When the Election Commission is faced with allegations of voter fraud, it is up to the poll body’s discretion on how it wants to proceed further,” former Chief Election Commissioner OP Rawat told The Quint, pointing at the difference in the response filed by the CEO of UP vis-a-vis those filed by the other states.
Gandhi had claimed that two names—Aditya Shrivastava and Vishal Singh—appeared in the rolls of multiple rolls including Bangalore, Mumbai, Lucknow and Varanasi.
In response, UP CEO stated, “A search on voters.eci.gov.in confirmed their names in Bangalore Urban’s Mahadevapura constituency but found no record of them in the voter lists of Uttar Pradesh’s Lucknow East or Varanasi Cantt.”
‘EC Should Conduct Inquiry, Provide Proof to Public’
On Sunday, 10 August the Election Commission reiterated its ultimatum to Rahul Gandhi— “either sign the declaration on issues you have raised in the press conference which you believe is true or apologise to the nation.”
It cited Karnataka CEO's fresh notice to Gandhi, which sought documents to support his allegation that a particular voter Ms Shakun Rani has voted twice. It stated, “On inquiry, Shakun Rani has stated that she has voted only once, and not twice as alleged by you.”
To this, Gandhi retorted that the data was taken from EC’s own website. “This is their data. It is not my data that I should sign. It is their data only and has been taken from their website. This is only a move to distract,” Gandhi told reporters on Monday.
On being asked what should be the poll body’s future course of action, Chhokar told The Quint that the EC should immediately conduct an inquiry to not only protect its own reputation but also the the people’s trust in the democratic process.
“If Gandhi’s claims are factually incorrect, then EC should come out in the public and provide proof to the citizens. If his claims are correct, then they should rectify the situation and conduct a press conference on changes introduced in the system to make it more robust and transparent,” Chhokar posited.
He asserted that the Election Commission must provide evidence either way.