Arise Bharat

Author : Lt Col Ajay Kumar (retd)

Rahul Gandhi’s latest attack on the Election Commission of India (ECI) has turned a perennial administrative problem into a national political flashpoint. Allegations of fraudulent voter lists, once a technical issue, are now a test of institutional credibility and political legitimacy.

In a press conference in early July, Gandhi claimed the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had captured the electoral machinery, citing “80 voters in one room in Bengaluru” as part of what he called a “nationwide pattern” of manipulation. He alleged that in one Bengaluru constituency alone, his team found 11,965 duplicate votes, 40,009 with fake addresses, and 4,132 with invalid photos.

The BJP calls these charges an assault on India’s institutions and an echo of foreign propaganda. The fight is no longer about the voter list alone. It is about who defines the integrity of India’s democratic process.

The Legal Guardrail: No Vote Can Be Cut Without Due Process

Indian law forbids removing a name from the final rolls without following the prescribed legal procedure. Lost in the political noise is a core fact: no one can force the ECI to remove your name without the steps laid down in law.

The Rule That Protects Voters: 20(3)(b) Explained

Under Rule 20(3)(b), any allegation must be backed by sworn evidence—without it, no Electoral Registration Officer can lawfully act. If someone—especially a non-voter of your constituency—claims your name is wrongly included, they must appear as a witness and give evidence on oath. An ERO can investigate a few cases flagged by credible reports, but cannot order mass deletions or thousands of notices based solely on print, TV, or social media claims.

When Media Trials Replace Legal Complaints

Gandhi says his team has uncovered a “treasure trove of evidence” proving the BJP’s electoral dominance is manufactured. He accuses the ECI of colluding “openly” with the ruling party to steal votes without fear of consequence.

He has also attacked changes to the Election Commissioner selection process—replacing the Chief Justice of India with the Home Minister on the panel—as proof of institutional capture.

Instead of filing sworn complaints under the Representation of the People Act, Gandhi has taken his case to the public sphere—press conferences, social media, rallies—avoiding the procedural demands and cross-examination that a legal case would entail. His language is pointed—“treason” and “rajdroh”—and he has warned polling officials that “there will be consequences” when his party returns to power.

The ECI’s Shield: Procedure as Protection, Not Evasion

The ECI’s response has been to insist on due process. Under Rule 20(3)(b), allegations must be filed under oath within 45 days of election results. It points to formal channels such as the National Grievance Services Portal and the Booth Level Agent system.

When Gandhi demanded access to polling booth CCTV footage nationwide, the ECI noted in a written briefing that reviewing footage from one lakh polling stations would take “one lakh days—approximately 273 years,” with no legal outcome possible without a review petition. Digital rolls are already shared with candidates; video is retained for 45 days.

By sticking to procedure, the ECI seeks to protect its neutrality. But in today’s mistrust-laden climate, process is easily painted as avoidance.

Bihar’s 9% Roll Purge and the Tamil Nadu Allegation

Bihar’s deletion of 6.56 million names—over 9% of its electorate—was explained by the ECI as deaths, migration, and duplication, but spun by rivals into an interstate conspiracy. In its affidavit to the Supreme Court, the ECI listed:

• 2.23 million deaths
• 3.62 million migrations
• 0.7 million duplication or disqualification

Parties had access to the full data and could file objections—but chose public outrage instead.

Bypassing the Law for the Optics of Outrage

Despite clear legal avenues, no mass sworn complaints were filed. Political energy went into fuelling a narrative rather than mounting a procedural challenge that might have compelled official action.

A Long Tradition of Voter Roll Manipulation

Manipulating voter rolls is not new. Past clean-ups—52 lakh deletions in Karnataka in 2008, 78 lakh in Uttar Pradesh in 2007—passed with little protest. Today, the same actions trigger allegations of partisan fraud.

Historically, Congress and the Left were accused of such manipulation; now BJP, TMC, DMK, and others face similar charges. The difference is that trust in the ECI has thinned to the point where even routine exercises are suspect.

State Hotspots: From Bengal to Tamil Nadu

West Bengal has long been a theatre of contested elections. Allegations of booth capturing, ballot stuffing, and physical intimidation are common. The BJP and others accuse the ruling TMC of cultivating Bangladeshi Muslim migrants as a vote bank. The TMC, in turn, claims BJP–ECI manipulation of rolls.

Kerala sees allegations in both directions. The CPM says the BJP added thousands of fake voters in Thrissur; the BJP alleges five lakh discrepancies under the Left’s watch, along with incidents of poll violence and intimidation.

Tamil Nadu is no stranger to rigging charges. The DMK has faced accusations of using state machinery to influence results. Now, Congress and DMK allege that Bihar’s deleted voters were “transferred” southwards—an inversion of the usual claim.

Across states, the pattern is constant: in opposition, a party denounces the rolls; in power, it defends them.

Migration, Mobility, and the Seeds of Mistrust

With 96 crore registered voters and 45 crore internal migrants, keeping rolls accurate is a massive task. Migrant workers without fixed addresses can vanish from one list before appearing on another.

Former Chief Election Commissioners say 3–4% discrepancies are inevitable without annual door-to-door verification. In earlier decades, this was seen as a logistical flaw; today, it is political ammunition.

Why This Is a Crisis Now, Not Before

Three forces have amplified what was once a niche administrative debate into a central political faultline:

1. Polarised campaigning – Social media’s reach rewards sensational claims over procedural detail, making voter list charges a potent rallying tool.
2. Fragmented media landscape – Competing ecosystems reinforce partisan narratives, reducing space for institutional explanations to be heard.
3. Declining cross-party trust – In the past, large deletions were accepted as part of clean-up drives; now, every move is presumed partisan.

From Electoral Dispute to a Question of National Loyalty

The BJP’s framing of Gandhi’s charges as a “Pakistani narrative” turns a procedural dispute into a test of allegiance. It contrasts India’s constitutional safeguards and an independent ECI with Pakistan’s history of military-driven electoral manipulation—from the rigged 1977 polls to the 2024 engineered outcome.

The Core Breakdown: Trust in the Referee is Gone

Without confidence in the ECI, even genuine corrections will be dismissed as partisan fraud. The ECI’s insistence on process is framed as evasion; the opposition’s avoidance of formal filings is seen as tactical.

Restoring Confidence Before It’s Too Late

Repairing this fracture will require both transparency and discipline. The ECI could, without legal compulsion, publish detailed deletion lists with clear reasons, closing the information vacuum that fuels conspiracy theories. Regular, structured consultations with all major parties before and after roll revisions could take the secrecy out of the process.

The opposition, in turn, could anchor its charges in sworn, evidence-backed complaints while sustaining its public campaign. Rally speeches may mobilise supporters, but procedural leg

itimacy is what compels institutional change.

Conclusion: Protecting the Sanctity of the Ballot

Rule 20(3)(b) is not a technicality—it is the last defence against arbitrary disenfranchisement, and with it, the foundation of Indian democracy. If politicians bypass legal safeguards in favour of narratives, and the ECI bends to public pressure without oaths or affidavits, the vote itself will lose its sanctity.