Concerns Mount Over Alleged Vote Fraud and Election Commission's Role in India

 

Concerns Mount Over Alleged Vote Fraud and Election Commission's Role in India

Recent developments have cast a shadow of doubt over the integrity of electoral processes in India, with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi leading allegations of widespread vote fraud and questioning the impartiality of the Election Commission (EC). These concerns were highlighted in a series of press conferences, where both Congress and BJP leaders acknowledged issues, but the Election Commission's responses have largely been seen as evasive and contributing to public mistrust.

Key Allegations of Vote Fraud:

Rahul Gandhi's team presented evidence of significant fraudulent activities across various elections, detailing specific methods used:

• Mahadevapura Assembly Segment (2024 Lok Sabha Elections): An investigation uncovered 100,250 fraudulent votes in a single constituency within the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha seat, which had a total of approximately 650,000 votes cast. This segment was the only one lost by Congress in that seat, and the alleged fraud, significantly exceeding the 32,707 winning margin, is believed to have "completely overturned" the overall result of the seat. The five methods of fraud identified included:
  • Over 11,000 duplicate voters.
  • Over 40,000 fake and invalid addresses.
  • Over 10,000 bulk voters using the same addresses.
  • Over 4,000 voters with invalid photos.
  • Over 33,000 instances of misuse of Form 6 (used for voter registration).
• Maharashtra Assembly Elections (2024): Allegations suggest similar theft, pointing to a discrepancy of 10 million new voters added to the state electoral rolls within 5-6 months for the Vidhan Sabha elections, compared to the Lok Sabha elections held earlier the same year. This rapid increase in voters is considered highly unusual.
• Madhya Pradesh Assembly Elections (2023): Rahul Gandhi's team claimed fraud in 27 seats where the BJP's winning margin was between 28 and 15,600 votes. A striking example is the Surkhi seat, won by BJP leader Govind Singh Rajput with a margin of 2,178 votes, which saw 8,994 new voters added in the two months preceding the election. More broadly, approximately 1.6 million voters were added in just two months (August to October) leading up to the election, compared to 464,000 over the preceding seven months, averaging around 25,000 new registrations daily. Furthermore, an EC order to remove 851,000 fake and duplicate entries in December 2022 was reportedly not acted upon by district officers.
• Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar: The revision of electoral rolls is allegedly being done improperly, with living people declared dead and dead people declared alive. Journalist Tamil Saha's video showed deceased individuals (Bhasu Singh and Krishna Devi, dead for 8 years) still on the draft voter list, while Bhasu Singh's living son, Dilip, was removed. Yogendra Yadav even brought individuals declared dead to the Supreme Court to prove they were alive. This marks the first time in India's post-independence history that 6.5 million voters have been removed without any additions during a revision.
• Fictitious Addresses and Bulk Voters: Investigations by The Reporters Collective revealed egregious errors, such as 509 voters from different backgrounds all registered at the same non-existent address in Pipra constituency, village Galeempur. Another imaginary address was listed with 459 registered voters. In just three constituencies (Pipra, Bagaha, Motihari), 3,590 cases were found with 20 or more people registered at the same address, many of which were non-existent houses, totaling about 80,000 such voters. Additionally, voter lists included "invalid entries" like "Ytdtr" instead of actual names.

Election Commission's Controversial Stance:

The Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, has faced strong criticism for his and the EC's handling of these allegations, which critics argue undermines transparency and trust.

• Refusal to Share CCTV Footage: The EC refused to release CCTV footage from polling booths, citing concerns about "leaking videos of women" and comparing it to "bathroom footage". Critics argue this is illogical, as polling booth footage is not private and could easily verify claims, such as the alleged influx of voters after 5:30 PM in Maharashtra. AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek all concluded that an impartial EC would preserve such footage, not destroy it.
• Destruction of Evidence: Despite pending questions about election legitimacy, the EC instructed polling officers to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after elections. When India Today filed an RTI, the EC refused to provide a reason, claiming the matter was subjudice, a stance contradicted by a 2017 Central Information Commission ruling.
• Affidavit Requirement Disparity: The EC demanded an affidavit from Rahul Gandhi for his fraud allegations but did not ask BJP leader Anurag Thakur for one, even though Thakur also raised concerns about voter fraud. This raises questions about fairness, especially since Rahul Gandhi's evidence was based on EC's own data. Affidavits are usually for courts to prevent frivolous complaints, not typically for lodging complaints with a quasi-judicial constitutional body like the EC that should investigate errors.
• Lack of Accountability and Intimidation: Gyanesh Kumar's press conference remarks were described as "illogical" and "language of intimidation," akin to a politician rather than an officer of a constitutional body. His statements, like suggesting thousands of voters could have the same name, were dismissed as nonsensical when considering father's names and addresses.

Undermining Constitutional Safeguards:

Concerns are also raised about changes affecting the EC's independence:

• Appointment of Election Commissioners: A landmark Supreme Court judgment (Anoop Baranwal v Union of India, March 2023) ruled that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a high-powered committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, ensuring impartiality. However, in December 2023, the BJP government bypassed this judgment by passing a law that replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister, creating a committee with two government members and one opposition member, effectively allowing the government to appoint its preferred commissioner. Petitions against this law have been filed but the Supreme Court refused to order a stay.
• Immunity from Prosecution: The new law also grants immunity to EC officials from civil or criminal proceedings for actions taken during official duty, even if they intentionally facilitate fraud or obstruct democracy. This provision is seen as deeply problematic, enabling wrongdoing without recourse. Gyanesh Kumar himself was appointed under this new law, with a committee where the ratio of government to opposition members was 2:1.

Previous Instances of Election Irregularities and Supreme Court Intervention:

The current allegations follow other documented cases of electoral fraud that have seen judicial intervention:

• Chandigarh Mayor Polls: The Returning Officer, Anil Masihya, was caught on CCTV defacing ballot papers to invalidate votes for the Congress-AAP Alliance, aiming to elect the BJP candidate. The Supreme Court famously called this the "murder of democracy" and ordered Masihya's prosecution, ultimately declaring the AAP candidate as Mayor.
• Haryana Panchayat Elections (Buana Lakhu): After a 33-month legal battle, the Supreme Court overturned a Panchayat election result, finding an error in a vote count and declaring a different candidate, Mohit Kumar, as the winner after a videographed recount of the EVM.

Call for Transparency and Accountability:

The ongoing situation highlights a crucial challenge to Indian democracy. While election results can legally be challenged within 45 days by filing an election petition in the High Court, the alleged actions of the EC, such as destroying CCTV footage, actively hinder the collection of necessary evidence, making such legal challenges difficult.

The collective concerns point to a crisis of trust in the Election Commission, an institution constitutionally mandated to ensure fair and transparent elections. Critics argue that the EC has a moral responsibility to restore public trust by proving its innocence and ensuring complete transparency, or resign. The situation is not merely a political contest but a fundamental question of safeguarding citizens' votes and the integrity of India's democratic process.