In recent months, however, this foundational promise has come under unprecedented strain. Allegations of systematic irregularities in the electoral process have shaken public confidence in the Election Commission of India (ECI)—the very institution entrusted under Article 324 of the Constitution with the “superintendence, direction and control” of elections. What is at stake is not only the outcome of specific contests but the credibility of the electoral machinery itself.

The controversy was ignited most forcefully by leader of the opposition (loP)  in the Lok Sabha and Congress member of parliament (MP) from Rae Bareily in Uttar Pradesh, Rahul Gandhi’s recent presentation on “vote chori” (vote theft), where he alleged that constituencies such as Bengaluru Central were decisively tilted through fraudulent voter roll practices (August 7). He was joined soon after by member of parliament (MP) from Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, who revealed that as far back as 2022 they had submitted 18,000 notarised affidavits documenting voter list discrepancies in Uttar Pradesh—only to have them ignored. Adding weight to these charges, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) announced in August 2025 that it would move the Orissa High Court over what it described as large-scale irregularities in the 2024 elections in Odisha. Together, these accusations signal not a partisan grievance but a cross-party consensus that the electoral referee has failed in its duty. Before the August 7 press conference that continues to create serious ripples, Rahul Gandhi had on June 8, penned a multi-edition piece on “Match-fixing in Maharashtra” where, he had, once before, flagged the issue of voters tolls, writing, “Voter rolls and CCTV footage are tools to be used to strengthen democracy, not ornaments to be locked up. The people of India have a right to be assured that no records have been or will be trashed.”

The allegations are serious and specific. They include claims of duplicate voters registered in multiple constituencies, entries with fake or non-existent addresses, dozens of individuals shown as living in single residences or even commercial establishments, blurred or invalid photographs, and misuse of Form 6 intended for first-time voters. Equally troubling are charges of large-scale deletion of legitimate voters—particularly Muslims, Dalits and Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh—amounting to targeted disenfranchisement. When placed against narrow margins in key constituencies, these irregularities take on profound significance: as Rahul Gandhi put it, “the theft of just 25 seats” could be enough to alter the national balance of power.

Compounding these charges are allegations of deliberate opacity and suppression of evidence by the ECI itself. Political parties have for years demanded access to machine-readable electoral rolls; instead, the Commission has restricted itself to scanned, image-based PDFs that prevent meaningful digital scrutiny, especially recently. Requests for CCTV footage from polling stations have been rebuffed, and in December 2024, rules governing access to such records were amended with unusual haste to narrow transparency. The destruction of critical CCTV evidence, last-minute amendments to electoral regulations, and the Commission’s refusal even to meet parliamentary delegations of opposition MPs—all have deepened suspicions that lapses are not accidental but systemic. Further raising concerns, the ECI, on May 30, 2025, drastically cut the retention period for election video and photographic records to a mere 45 days after the announcement of results. This is a stark departure from previous norms that mandated preservation for durations ranging from 3 months to a full year. The ECI cited “recent misuse” of recorded material as justification, framing videography as an “internal management tool.”

The Commission, for its part, has denied all allegations, asserting that it operates with complete neutrality. In an August 17, 2025 press conference, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar declared that “for the Election Commission, there is neither an opposition nor a ruling party. All are equal.” Yet, the Commission’s repeated insistence that selected complainants (elected officials of the ruling Bharatiya Janata party have not been served such an ECI ‘ultimatum’) file sworn affidavits before any inquiry will be undertaken stands in uneasy contrast with the law. Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, explicitly empowers electoral officers to act suo moto to correct discrepancies—a power that cannot be abdicated. By shifting the burden onto citizens and parties, critics argue, the Commission has inverted its constitutional role.

The controversy is further sharpened by the passage of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which extends sweeping immunity to Commissioners from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done “in the course of acting or purporting to act” in their official capacity. Coming just ahead of the 2024 general elections, this provision has raised fears that the institution most responsible for guaranteeing electoral fairness now stands shielded from accountability.

This article examines the crisis in its full dimensions. It sets out the allegations advanced by multiple political parties, most specifically those from the opposition,  the Election Commission’s denials, the legal and constitutional framework that governs elections, and the mechanisms—statutory, judicial, and disciplinary—through which accountability may be enforced. Above all, it argues that the question today is not whether irregularities occurred in this or that constituency, but whether the constitutional machinery entrusted with safeguarding the franchise of nearly a billion Indians can still command the trust of the people.

Civil Society leads the charge

Even before the political opposition got into the act, citizens groups and former bureaucrats and judges had flagged the flailing unaccountability in the ECI, especially since 2017. The Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) –that set up the Citizens Commission on Elections (CCE) –are prominent among these. Of late, Vote for Democracy (VFD) has emerged as a platform that has, through data analyses, exposed the substantial discrepancies in the India’s electoral system.

Section I- Allegations against the Election Commission of India

The most direct challenge to the Election Commission’s credibility came from Rahul Gandhi’s presentation on “vote chori” (vote theft) in August 2025, where he laid out in detail what he described as “five mechanisms of electoral theft” from one assembly constituency in Bengaluru (Mahadevpura) of others in the Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency. His claims were grounded in specific documentary evidence drawn from electoral rolls and booth-level data and took six months of manual work to unravel given the ECI’s refusal to supply easily accessible voter lists. The allegations extended beyond general suspicions to verifiable instances where the rolls reflected duplications, fictitious addresses, and suspiciously bulked entries.

Allegations by the Indian National Congress (Mahadevpura AC, Bengaluru Central)

1. Duplicate voters

The first category of irregularities highlighted was the presence of duplicate entries. Rahul Gandhi’s team documented 11,965 cases where the same individual appeared multiple times within a constituency or even across different states. In some instances, the duplication went as far as the same EPIC (Electors Photo Identity Card) number being valid in multiple constituencies.

• Example: Gurkirat Singh Dang was found to appear more than once in the Mahadevapura rolls of Bengaluru.
• Other cases revealed names repeated across cities like Mumbai, Lucknow, and Varanasi, raising the prospect of the same individual voting in more than one location.

2. Fake and invalid addresses

The second irregularity involved 40,009 cases of voters listed at non-existent or invalid addresses. Entries included house numbers listed simply as “0,” “–,” or “#,” with no corresponding physical address.

• Example: Booth No. 432 in Bengaluru reportedly carried multiple entries of voters residing at address “0.”

3. Bulk voters at a single address

In another startling discovery, 10,452 cases showed dozens of voters being registered at tiny homes or even commercial premises.

• Example: House No. 35 listed 80 voters; House No. 791 had 46 voters.
• Perhaps most striking, the “153 Biere Club,” a brewery, was shown as the residence for 68 voters.

4. Invalid photographs

A fourth category of manipulation involved 4,132 entries with micro-sized or blurred photographs, making it impossible for polling agents to identify voters accurately.

• Example: Booth Nos. 5 and 274 in Bengaluru contained such invalid photo entries.

5. Misuse of Form 6

Finally, Rahul Gandhi alleged widespread misuse of Form 6, which is intended strictly for first-time voters. Instead, the form was used to create duplicate entries or multiple registrations.

• Example: Shakun Rani, a 70-year-old woman, was enrolled twice within two months under slightly different spellings and photographs, and both entries were recorded as having cast votes.

Together, these five methods painted what Rahul Gandhi described as a systematic architecture of electoral theft, not isolated errors. He alleged that in constituencies such as Bangalore Central (Mahadevapura segment), more than 1,00,250 fraudulent entries were found. The Congress candidate Mansoor Ali Khan lost this constituency by 32,707 votes. However, excluding the Mahadevapura segment—where the irregularities were most pronounced—Congress would have led by over 80,000 votes. “This is how the Bangalore Central seat was stolen,” Rahul Gandhi claimed.

At a broader level, he argued that this pattern extended across states: in Haryana, the Congress lost eight seats by a combined margin of only 22,779 votes out of over two crore cast. Nationally, he asserted, the BJP won 25 seats with margins under 33,000 votes. His conclusion was stark: Prime Minister Modi “only needed to steal 25 seats to stay in power in 2024.” Gandhi had also made strong claims on Maharashtra in June 2025.

Gandhi expanded these charges in his Indian Express article (“Match-fixing Maharashtra”, June 7, 2025), where he called the November 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections a textbook case of “industrial-scale rigging.” Citing Election Commission’s own statistics, he highlighted:

• An abrupt 41 lakh surge in registered voters between the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the November 2024 Assembly elections — exceeding even the state’s projected adult population.
• An unprecedented jump of 7.83 percentage points in turnout after 5 pm, equivalent to an extra 76 lakh votes appearing overnight without visible queues or extended polling hours.
• A disproportionate spike concentrated in about 12,000 booths across 85 constituencies where the BJP had underperformed earlier, with “miraculous” late additions averaging 600 votes per booth.

As a case study, Gandhi pointed to Kamthi, where the Congress’s vote tally remained stable between the two elections, while the BJP’s votes leapt by 56,000 — almost entirely explained by the sudden new additions. In his words, “It is not hard to discern the lotus shape of the magnet.”

He concluded that this “match-fixing” was made possible by a pliant Election Commission, opaque voter roll management, and post-poll amendments to restrict access to CCTV and electronic records. “Match-fixed elections are a poison for any democracy,” Gandhi warned.

Supporting him, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra warned that the BJP, having “stolen employment and public sector assets,” was now attempting to steal citizens’ votes. At rallies in Supaul and Darbhanga, she called the vote the “identity and foundation of citizenship,” cautioning that “if you allow your vote to be stolen, you will have no identity left, and your rights will be taken away.” She urged people to resist disenfranchisement, insisting that “we will not allow even a single vote of the poor to be stolen.”

The Congress and INDIA bloc thus framed the misuse of voter rolls, duplicate registrations, targeted late surges, and opaque revisions not as isolated lapses but as the deliberate subversion of universal adult franchise — the constitutional core of Indian democracy.

Allegations from the Samajwadi Party

If Rahul Gandhi’s allegations focused on manipulation through fraudulent inclusions, the Samajwadi Party (SP) brought forward evidence of large-scale, targeted deletions. On August 18, 2025, SP President Akhilesh Yadav revealed that the party had submitted 18,000 notarised affidavits to the ECI after the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, documenting widespread discrepancies in the rolls. These complaints go back to the 2022 assembly polls in the state and are also indicators that opposition parties have and had been complaining of malpractices for some years now though the Mahadevpura analysis by the Congress gave these allegations heft. Each affidavit had –following the ‘demand’ by the Commission–been signed, notarised, and formally acknowledged with receipts by the Commission. Yet, according to SP, not a single case was acted upon.

The SP alleged that the deletions were discriminatory, targeting Muslim, Dalit and Yadav voters ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, amounting to a breach of Article 326 of the Constitution, which guarantees universal adult franchise. In constituencies such as Mainpuri, the SP alleged that local officials from the Thakur community—the same caste as the state’s Chief Minister—used their authority and police resources to intimidate Opposition voters and prevent them from voting. These actions, the party argued, exceeded the legal powers of such officials and amounted to a misuse of state machinery.

Adding to this grievance, SP noted the Commission’s double standards. While the ECI demanded a sworn affidavit from Rahul Gandhi for his “vote chori” charges, it ignored the 18,000 affidavits already submitted by SP years earlier. For SP, this was proof of bias and dereliction, evidence that the Commission had chosen to shield the ruling party while denying legitimate complaints from the Opposition. Ram Gopal Yadav likened these deletions to a “backdoor NRC,” implying that disenfranchisement of voters was being used as a covert means of declaring citizens non-citizens.

Additional documented irregularities

Beyond Rahul Gandhi and SP, several other instances have surfaced that suggest deeper systemic flaws (many of these arose after citizens began their own independent investigations following Gandhi’s explosive analysis):

• Maharashtra (Palghar District): The case of Ms. Sushama Gupta, (in the 2024 Maharashtra Lok Sabha and assembly 2024 voters lists) whose name appeared six times across different localities in the electoral rolls, each with a distinct EPIC number. Astonishingly, five of these entries remained active, with one entry even bizarrely listing her as “gupta Gupta.” Despite multiple elections in 2024, local officials failed to rectify the duplicates, raising serious accountability concerns. Worse, these citizens’ investigations flagged the multiple presence of Sushama Gupta in Palghar, shockingly revealed that the District Election Officer(DEO), Govind Bobde, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), Shekhar Ghadge and the Booth Level Officer(BLO),Ms. Pallavi Sawant are common to and named against all these entries in all the six locations!!!
• Discrepancy between Roll Versions: In Maharashtra, two versions of the electoral roll were in circulation—one with photographs (seen on polling day) and one without (on the ECI portal). Serial numbers between the two did not match, suggesting that different lists were being used for Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections.
• Odisha (BJD Allegations): The Biju Janata Dal accused the Commission of large-scale discrepancies in the 2024 elections, including instances where the number of votes counted exceeded those recorded in EVMs, mismatches between Lok Sabha and Assembly segment tallies, and reports of 15–30% of polling occurring after scheduled hours. Despite submitting a detailed memorandum on December 19, 2024, the party received no response from the ECI. Frustrated, in August 2025, it announced its decision to move the Orissa High Court seeking judicial oversight and an independent audit.

Findings of the Vote for Democracy (VFD) report

Beyond political parties, civil society experts and former officials have also produced evidence of systemic irregularities. Last year, in July 2024, a citizen’s platform, Vote for Democracy (VFD) released, first an investigation into the sharp vote increase in the 2024 parliamentary elections (Report: Conduct of Lok Sabha Elections 2024-Analysis of ‘Vote Manipulation’ and ‘Misconduct during Voting and Counting’-Has the 2024 Mandate been stolen from the people of India) and followed up by another Report on the Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir state elections.

Continuing this work, on August 13, 2025, the citizen’s group Vote for Democracy (VFD), led by experts including M.G. Devasahayam, Dr. Pyara Lal Garg, Madhav Deshpande, and Prof. Harish Karnick, released a report titled “Dysfunctional ECI and Weaponisation of India’s Election System.” This report, based on official data from the ECI and the CEO Maharashtra, along with ground testimonies, presented a devastating critique of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections.

The VFD’s central argument was that India’s electronic voting system (EVS) had been “weaponised” through four interlinked components:

1. EVM microchips,
2. VVPATs (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails),
3. Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) with labile memory, and
4. Electoral Rolls, where disenfranchisement has been rampant.

Together, the VFD argued, these vulnerabilities—especially after the system ceased to be fully stand-alone post-2017—created avenues for manipulation. The report warned starkly: “If allowed to continue, it could sound the death-knell of electoral democracy.”

Key findings in the VFD Report of Assembly elections, Maharashtra (2024):

1. Unexplained midnight turnout surge
   • Between 5 PM and midnight, official turnout jumped by 7.83%, adding nearly 48 lakh extra votes statewide.
   • Constituencies like Nanded (+13.57%), Jalgaon (+11.11%), and Solapur (+10.63%) saw unprecedented spikes. Historically, late surges are minimal.
2. Close margins, high stakes
   • 25 seats were won by less than 3,000 votes, 39 seats by less than 5,000, and 69 seats by less than 10,000. Even minor anomalies could have altered outcomes.
3. Erratic and unverifiable voter roll changes
   • Between the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections and November 2024 Assembly elections—barely six months—the rolls ballooned by over 46 lakh voters.
   • The additions were concentrated in 12,000 booths across 85 constituencies, many where the BJP had underperformed in May.
   • At some booths, 600+ new voters were added after 5 PM, implying impossible voting hours.
4. Discrepancies between official data sources
   • On August 30, 2024, the ECI reported 9.64 crore voters, while the CEO Maharashtra reported only 9.53 crore — a gap of over 11 lakh.
   • By October 30, 2024, the CEO’s figure had surged to 9.70 crore, an increase of 16 lakh voters in just 15 days.
5. Large-scale data mismatches (2019–2024)
   • In 2019, rolls grew by 11.6 lakh between LS and Assembly polls; in 2024, they grew by an astonishing 39.5 lakh in six months.
   • Votes polled in the 2024 Assembly were 71 lakh more than in the Lok Sabha election earlier that year, a gap the ECI has not explained.
6. Partisan vote surges
   • BJP votes rose sharply between May and November 2024, averaging +28,000 votes per Assembly seat, without corresponding demographic change.
   • In Kamthi, BJP gained 56,000 votes while Congress remained static. In Karad (South), 41,000 more votes were polled within six months.
7. High-profile constituency anomalies
   • In Nagpur South West (a seat associated with the Deputy CM), 29,219 voters were added in six months, beyond the permissible 4% verification limit.
   • In Markadwadi village, Solapur, allegations surfaced that EVM results did not match actual votes, and police blocked attempts at verification.
8. Procedural and technical failures
   • Reports of routers near polling stations, power cuts during counting, EVMs arriving late at strong rooms, CCTV failures, and even strong room breaches.
   • Mismatches between Form 17C and Control Unit counts were reported.
   • VVPAT concerns persisted, including potential internet connectivity and lack of independent audits.
9. Curtailment of transparency
   • In December 2024, the ECI amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules to restrict access to CCTV footage and Form 17C, days after a High Court had ordered their release.
   • In May 2025, the retention of election CCTV footage was reduced from one year to 45 days, enabling destruction of evidence before legal challenges.
10. Failure on hate speech

• Despite more than 100 complaints of hate speech during the Maharashtra polls, no visible action was taken by the ECI.

Patterns of Malpractice

Taken together — Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of fraudulent inclusions, the SP’s claims of targeted deletions, the BJD’s account of counting mismatches in Odisha, and the VFD’s expert-backed findings in Maharashtra — a consistent pattern emerges.

The alleged irregularities are not isolated errors but systemic failures involving both inclusion of fictitious voters and deletion of legitimate ones, compounded by opaque procedures and legal amendments that obstruct scrutiny. When seen in constituencies with razor-thin margins, these anomalies raise the gravest possible question: whether electoral outcomes in 2024 reflected the will of the people, or the failure of the institution mandated to safeguard it.

Section II: The Election Commission’s response

In the face of mounting allegations from opposition parties and civil society, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has consistently maintained its neutrality, often framing the charges as politically motivated attempts to undermine the institution’s credibility. The clearest articulation of this defence came on August 17, 2025, when Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar addressed a press conference in New Delhi. His statement sought to reassure the public that the Commission “stood, stands, and will stand with all voters — the poor, the rich, the elderly, women, youth, and all classes and religions — without any discrimination.”

Neutrality and equal treatment

At the core of the Commission’s defence was the claim that it cannot and does not discriminate among political parties. As the CEC put it, “for the Election Commission, there is neither an opposition nor a ruling party. All are equal.” The Commission emphasised that every political party is registered under the same statutory framework, and therefore must be treated equally. On this basis, it rejected allegations that it had ignored complaints by the Congress, Samajwadi Party, or BJD while demanding affidavits from Rahul Gandhi.

The affidavit demand

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Commission’s stance has been its insistence that Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders file sworn affidavits to substantiate their claims of “vote chori.” The ECI cited Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, arguing that it required complainants who were not voters in the concerned constituency to submit their claims on oath.

The Commission framed this requirement as a matter of fairness to voters: “Should my voters be made criminals, and should the Election Commission remain silent? It’s not possible. An affidavit must be given, or an apology must be given to the country. There is no third option.” The CEC went further, warning that if an affidavit was not submitted within seven days, the Commission would treat all allegations as baseless.

Legal experts, however, have pointed out that Rule 20(3)(b) applies only during the claims and objections phase after publication of draft rolls, not after elections are concluded. Critics have argued that the Commission’s reliance on this provision is legally misplaced, especially when Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 clearly empowers Electoral Registration Officers to act suo motu to correct rolls riddled with errors or duplications.

Defence on transparency

The Commission has also defended its controversial decisions to limit access to electoral data and CCTV footage. Responding to demands for machine-readable electoral rolls, the ECI invoked the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Kamal Nath v. ECI, where the Court upheld the Commission’s instructions to publish only image-based PDFs to protect voter privacy. According to the CEC, searchable digital rolls could enable misuse through profiling or data mining.

Similarly, when asked why CCTV footage from polling stations could not be shared, the Commission raised the spectre of privacy violations: “Should the Election Commission share CCTV videos of any voter, including our mothers, daughters-in-law, and daughters?” This line of argument was criticised by observers as a deflection, since demands for footage were aimed at verifying counting and procedural integrity, not at profiling individual voters.

Notably, the Commission had amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules in December 2024—barely 48 hours after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed it to release Form 17C records and CCTV footage from the Haryana elections. The speed and opacity of this amendment, finalised and notified in under two days, raised concerns that transparency safeguards were being deliberately rolled back. In May 2025, further changes reduced the retention period of CCTV footage from one year to just 45 days, effectively ensuring destruction of evidence before legal challenges could progress.

The duplicate voter question

On the issue of duplicate voters, the Commission argued that even if a name appeared in two places, no voter could cast more than one vote, since EVMs record only a single input per person. “If a name is in two places in the voter list, how can a vote be stolen? It can’t. A voter can only cast one vote,” the CEC declared. The Commission also pointed out that the Representation of the People Act, 1950, under Sections 17 and 18, already prohibits multiple registrations and empowers officials to remove duplicates. The implication was that any failure to act was the responsibility of field officers, not of the Commission itself.

Response to timeliness and election petitions

Another theme of the Commission’s defence has been the timeliness of complaints. The CEC repeatedly noted that political parties had opportunities during the draft roll phase to raise objections, and that once elections were concluded, disputes should be pursued only through election petitions in High Courts within 45 days, as provided under the RPA 1951. In the Commission’s view, allegations raised months after results were declared—whether in Karnataka, Maharashtra, or Odisha—were politically motivated attempts to discredit a process that had already run its legal course.

Dismissal of systemic criticism

Beyond procedural defences, the Commission has also taken a combative tone against its critics. It accused political leaders of “aiming at the voters of India with a gun on the shoulder of the Election Commission” and warned that spreading “misinformation” about the rolls amounted to an insult to the Constitution. It argued that preparing and revising electoral rolls is a “shared responsibility” between Booth Level Officers, political parties’ Booth Level Agents, and voters themselves. In this framing, the Commission positioned itself less as an all-powerful guarantor of electoral integrity and more as a coordinator dependent on others’ diligence.

A defence that raises more questions

While the Election Commission’s August 17 press conference and subsequent clarifications sought to reassure the public, they have instead deepened the crisis of credibility. The affidavit demand appears legally unsustainable; the privacy justification for withholding data is widely seen as a cover for opacity; and the rapid amendments to rules governing transparency suggest defensiveness rather than neutrality.

Moreover, by shifting responsibility onto Booth Level Officers, Electoral Registration Officers, and even political parties themselves, the Commission risks appearing to deny the very plenary duty vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution. Far from closing the controversy, the ECI’s responses have opened up new lines of critique—particularly whether a constitutional body can so openly disclaim accountability for the fairness of the electoral process it is mandated to uphold.

Section III- Political parties and the Court

On August 22, the Supreme Court issued significant directions in the Bihar Special Revision of Electoral Rolls (SIR) matter, easing the process for citizens excluded from the draft rolls. The Court ruled that such individuals may now file applications for inclusion through online mode, with no requirement for physical submission of forms.

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi further clarified that applicants may attach any of the eleven documents prescribed by the Election Commission of India or their Aadhaar card to support their claims for inclusion. This is an ongoing matter with several petitions filed challenging the controversial Bihar SIR, the lead petitioners being the Association of Democratic Reforms. The next hearing is scheduled for September 8.

To ensure effective facilitation, the Court directed that all 12 recognised political parties in Bihar instruct their Booth Level Agents to assist voters in their respective constituencies in completing and submitting the forms. It also impleaded these parties as respondents in the proceedings, where they were not already petitioners.

In terms of public transparency, the Court mandated that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar publish the relevant information on the official website, with documents searchable using EPIC numbers. The Election Commission was also asked to issue public notices making clear that Aadhaar can be furnished at the time of filing claims for inclusion. Additionally, the Commission must ensure wide publicity of the process through newspapers, television, and social media, and guarantee that the final electoral list is available online.

Significantly, in requiring searchable publication of the electoral rolls, the Court departed from its earlier 2018 ruling in Kamal Nath v. Election Commission, which had held that voter lists need not be made available in such a format.

1. BJD to move Orissa HC over irregularities in 2024 Lok Sabha

Eight months after alleging large-scale irregularities in the 2024 Assembly and Lok Sabha elections in Odisha, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has decided to move the Orissa High Court, citing inaction by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Former MPs Amar Patnaik, Sarmistha Sethi, and MLA Dhruba Charan Sahu stated that BJD had earlier flagged three major discrepancies. First, the number of votes counted exceeded those in EVMs across all 21 Lok Sabha constituencies—booth-level differences ranged from 660 to 784 votes. Second, there were mismatches between votes polled in Lok Sabha constituencies and their seven corresponding Assembly segments, with discrepancies up to 4,056 votes. Third, 15–30% of polling reportedly occurred after scheduled hours.

Despite submitting a memorandum on December 19, 2024, the ECI has not responded or shared Form 17C with candidates. The BJD, supported by Congress concerns, now seeks judicial intervention and an independent audit of the election process.

Source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2025/Aug/12/bjd-to-move-orissa-hc-over-irregularities-in-2024-lok-sabha-assembly-polls

Fact Check – Samajwadi Party Chief and MP, Akhilesh Yadav on August 17 (same day of ECI PC) wrote on his X handle that the Election Commission is claiming that they have not received the affidavits provided by the Samajwadi Party in UP; they should check the acknowledgment receipt issued by their own office as proof of receipt of our affidavits. This time, we demand that the Election Commission provide an affidavit stating that the digital receipt sent to us is authentic, otherwise, not only the ‘Election Commission’ but also ‘Digital India’ will come under suspicion.

जो चुनाव आयोग ये कह रहा है कि हमें यूपी में समाजवादी पार्टी द्वारा दिये गये ऐफ़िडेविट नहीं मिले हैं, वो हमारे शपथपत्रों की प्राप्ति के प्रमाण स्वरूप दी गयी अपने कार्यालय की पावती को देख ले। इस बार हम मांग करते हैं कि चुनाव आयोग शपथपत्र दे कि ये जो डिजिटल रसीद हमको भेजी गयी है वो… pic.twitter.com/9A4njvF9Tw

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) August 17, 2025

2. Protection granted to the Chief and Other Election Commissioners

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023—passed during the Winter Session of Parliament and notified with unusual urgency on January 2, 2025—includes a significant provision under Section 16. This clause explicitly prohibits any civil or criminal proceedings against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) or other Election Commissioners (ECs) for any act undertaken “in the course of acting or purporting to act” in their official capacity.

Following the enactment of the law, opposition parties raised specific and serious allegations of electoral bias and manipulation involving the Election Commission. Instead of addressing these concerns or engaging in public clarification, the Commission has remained silent, further diminishing public confidence in the institution. The decision to extend such sweeping legal immunity just ahead of a national election cycle raises fundamental questions about motive and accountability.

Congress claimed that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in collusion with the Election Commission, engaged in manipulative practices, with CEC Rajiv Kumar allegedly benefiting from the legal protection provided under the new Act.

Section IV- Fact check and legal framework

The Election Commission’s August 17 defence rested on three pillars: that complaints must be filed through affidavits; that duplicate names do not, by themselves, enable electoral fraud; and that constraints on access to electoral data are necessary for privacy. A closer examination of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts, and judicial precedent shows that each of these claims is, at best, a partial truth — and at worst, a fundamental misreading of the law.

1. Article 324: The plenary Constitutional mandate

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the ECI with the power of “superintendence, direction, and control” of elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.

• The Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), held that Article 324 is a plenary power that equips the Commission to act in situations unprovided for in law, to ensure free and fair elections.
• In Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar (2000), the Court reiterated that the Commission’s authority extends beyond statutory confines, because free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Thus, any claim that the Commission is a mere coordinator of Booth Level Officers or that responsibility lies with “field functionaries” contradicts constitutional text and judicial doctrine. The ECI cannot outsource accountability: it is the constitutional guarantor of the integrity of the franchise.

2. Representation of the People Act, 1950: Electoral rolls

The RPA 1950 assigns exclusive responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls to the Commission and its officers. Several provisions are directly relevant:

• Section 15: Mandates preparation of electoral rolls under the “superintendence, direction, and control” of the Election Commission.
• Section 17: Prohibits a person from being registered in more than one constituency.
• Section 18: Prohibits multiple entries for the same person within a constituency.
• Section 22: Crucially, empowers the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) to correct entries in the roll suo motu or on application, including deletion of duplicates and correction of errors.

The Commission’s claim that it cannot act without affidavits ignores this explicit suo motu power. Affidavits may be a procedural tool during the claims and objections stage, but the law imposes a proactive duty on officials to cleanse the rolls.

Most crucially, the onus is on the ECI and all its tiers of officials who are legally responsible for the state of electoral rolls.

This accountability is not only constitutional but also judicially forewarned. In A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai and Ors. (1984), Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali observed:

“If the Commission is armed with such unlimited and arbitrary powers and if it ever happens that the persons manning the Commission shares or is wedded to a particular ideology, he could by giving odd directions cause a political havoc or bring about a constitutional crisis, setting at naught the integrity and independence of electoral process, so important and indispensable to the democratic system.”

These words, written four decades ago, now appear almost prophetic. They highlight that when the ECI disowns responsibility or aligns itself too closely with ruling interests, it risks not only immediate electoral malpractice but also a systemic constitutional breakdown.

3. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Conduct of elections

The RPA 1951 governs the actual conduct of elections and remedies for irregularities:

• Section 100 provides that an election can be declared void if the result was “materially affected” by improper acceptance or rejection of votes, or by “non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act.”
• Section 129 empowers the Commission to delegate functions, but ultimate responsibility remains with it.

Judicial precedent has consistently underscored that the RPA’s remedies are not substitutes for the Commission’s constitutional duty under Article 324. The Commission cannot shield itself by insisting that aggrieved parties should pursue election petitions alone.

4. Case Law: Free and fair elections as the basic structure

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court held that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Any state action undermining this principle is unconstitutional.
• PUCL v. Union of India (2003): Affirmed the right to know as part of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a), grounding voter access to candidate information in constitutional rights.
• Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India (2002): The Court insisted that transparency in electoral processes is essential to democracy.
• Mohit Kumar v. ECI (Allahabad High Court, 2014): The Court held that electoral rolls must be error-free, and lapses in inclusion or deletion are actionable failures of the Commission.
• G.S. Iqbal v. Union of India (Gauhati High Court, 2021): Confirmed that the Commission cannot rely solely on political parties or complainants; it must proactively ensure the rolls’ integrity.

Together, these precedents make clear that the ECI is not a passive referee but the active custodian of electoral fairness.

5. The Affidavit Defence: A legal misstep

By invoking Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, the Commission attempted to shift responsibility to complainants. But this provision is limited to the claims and objections process after the publication of draft rolls. Once elections are over, and irregularities are alleged in final rolls, the Commission cannot hide behind affidavit requirements. Section 22 of RPA 1950 empowers and mandates, suo motu correction at any time.

The affidavit demand, therefore, is not only legally weak but also undermines public confidence, since it suggests that without sworn testimony, irregularities do not exist — a stance directly at odds with the law.

6. Transparency, privacy, and the Kamal Nath case

The Commission’s reliance on Kamal Nath v. ECI (2019) to justify denying machine-readable rolls also deserves scrutiny. In that case, the Court upheld restrictions on digitised rolls primarily to prevent bulk misuse of personal data. However, the ruling cannot be read to justify opacity in all contexts, especially when legitimate requests for machine-readable formats are aimed at detecting systemic fraud, not profiling voters.

Similarly, the Commission’s privacy-based defence for withholding CCTV footage is a red herring. Footage requests have been narrowly tailored to verify adherence to procedure (e.g., whether EVMs were properly sealed, whether strong rooms were breached). To frame these as intrusions into the “privacy of mothers and daughters” is a rhetorical deflection, not a legal argument.

7. Shifting blame to field officers

The ECI has argued that failures in roll management are attributable to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), and District Election Officers (DEOs). While these officials execute the process, they are legally deemed to be acting on behalf of the Commission.

The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) made clear that “the Commission is responsible for the conduct of elections in their entirety.” Delegation does not diminish accountability. By disclaiming responsibility for its own officers’ lapses, the ECI undermines the very logic of Article 324.

8. Accountability beyond elections

The Commission’s insistence that remedies lie only through election petitions under the RPA 1951 overlooks a broader point. Free and fair elections are not only about post-facto adjudication of disputes but about ongoing institutional duty. As the Supreme Court observed in Ashok Kumar (2000), the Commission has a continuing obligation to intervene “at every stage” to preserve electoral fairness.

Conclusion of the legal fact check

In light of the constitutional text, statutory duties, and judicial precedent, the Commission’s defences appear unsustainable. Affidavits are not legally necessary; privacy cannot override transparency in matters of public verification; and responsibility cannot be offloaded onto subordinate officers. The law is clear: the Election Commission of India bears ultimate accountability for the preparation of clean rolls, the conduct of free and fair elections, and the preservation of public confidence in the democratic process.

Section V: Accountability and immunity

The question that inevitably follows from the factual and legal critique of the Election Commission’s role is: who bears responsibility, and how can accountability be enforced? The Constitution, statutes, and case law leave little doubt that the Commission is the ultimate guarantor of electoral integrity. Yet, in recent years, legal and institutional changes have erected barriers to holding it answerable — creating what critics describe as a “zone of impunity” around India’s electoral machinery.

1. The chain of responsibility

The Election Commission has repeatedly argued that lapses in the preparation of electoral rolls or conduct of polling are attributable to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), District Election Officers (DEOs), and Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs). This argument is legally flawed.

• Under the RPA 1950 and 1951, these officials are appointed or deemed to be officers of the Commission for the purposes of elections.
• Their acts and omissions are therefore acts of the Commission itself, not of independent authorities.

As the Supreme Court clarified in Mohinder Singh Gill (1978), the Commission “is responsible for the conduct of elections in their entirety.” Delegation does not erase accountability. When duplicate entries remain in rolls, when legitimate voters are deleted, or when CCTV footage is destroyed, it is not a failure of isolated officers but a direct dereliction of duty by the Commission.

2. Constitutional duty cannot be waived

The Commission’s repeated claim that irregularities are external manipulations mischaracterises its mandate. Article 324 does not allow the Commission to disclaim responsibility for breaches in the system it supervises. As the Supreme Court observed in Ashok Kumar (2000), the Commission has a duty “at every stage” of the process to ensure fairness.

Thus, failures in preventing duplicate entries, fake addresses, misuse of Form 6, or suppression of transparency rules are not incidental lapses. They represent constitutional failures traceable directly to the Commission.

3. The 2023 commissioners’ immunity law

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 introduced a sweeping immunity clause:

“No civil or criminal proceedings shall lie against the Chief Election Commissioner or other Election Commissioners in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the course of acting or purporting to act in their official capacity.”

This clause insulates Commissioners personally from prosecution or liability, even if their actions — or inactions — facilitated systemic malpractice. The immunity is broader than that available to most constitutional authorities and, unlike parliamentary privileges, has no internal mechanism of accountability.

Critics argue that this provision undermines the very logic of constitutional governance. By shielding Commissioners from legal scrutiny, it creates a moral hazard: those entrusted with safeguarding elections are effectively placed above the law. In practice, this has emboldened the Commission to dismiss allegations and rebuff requests for transparency without fear of consequences.

4. Judicial oversight and election petitions

The Commission frequently points to election petitions under the RPA 1951 as the sole route for redress. While judicial oversight remains an important check, it suffers from two structural limitations:

1. Delay: Election petitions often take years to resolve, by which time the electoral cycle has moved on.
2. Scope: Petitions address individual constituencies, not systemic failures across states or nationwide.

As a result, even when irregularities are documented, there is little immediate accountability for the Commission itself.

5. Criminal and disciplinary liability

Beyond constitutional and statutory obligations, failures in electoral management may also entail criminal and disciplinary consequences:

• Section 32 of the RPA 1950: imposes penalties on officials who fail to perform their duty in relation to rolls.
• Section 134A of the RPA 1951: penalises any officer guilty of misconduct at elections.
• Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): provisions on forgery, fraud, and destruction of evidence may apply when officials knowingly permit duplicate entries, fake addresses, or deletion of legitimate voters.

Since these officials act as representatives of the Commission, ultimate accountability returns to the ECI itself. Immunity for Commissioners does not extend to field officers, but it raises an uncomfortable asymmetry: the lowest-level BLO may face penalties, while Commissioners who oversee systemic failures remain shielded.

6. Institutional evasion of responsibility

The combined effect of these legal frameworks and recent amendments is a troubling paradox. On the one hand, the Commission asserts absolute neutrality and denies wrongdoing. On the other, it distances itself from accountability by invoking:

• the personal immunity granted to Commissioners in 2023,
• the supposed responsibility of subordinate officers, and
• the narrow remedy of election petitions.

This evasion of responsibility corrodes public confidence. As one critic noted, “the referee cannot declare itself above the rules of the game.”

7. Restoring accountability

If electoral democracy is to retain legitimacy, accountability must be restored through:

• Judicial review of the 2023 immunity clause,
• Parliamentary oversight through Standing Committees,
• Statutory audits of rolls and EVMs by independent agencies, and
• Transparency measures, including mandatory publication of machine-readable rolls and retention of CCTV evidence for at least one year.

Without such checks, the Commission risks sliding into unassailable opacity, undermining the very legitimacy of the electoral system it exists to protect.

Section VI- Broader democratic implications

The controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI) is not a matter of mere administrative lapses. At stake is the credibility of India’s electoral democracy itself. Elections are not simply mechanisms for transferring power; they are rituals of legitimacy, binding citizens and the state through a collective act of trust. When that trust erodes, the democratic contract begins to fray.

1. Erosion of public trust

At the heart of the current crisis lies a profound erosion of trust. Allegations of duplicate voters, targeted deletions, and unexplained surges in turnout are not easily dismissed as technical errors when they are corroborated across multiple states and by independent experts. The perception that elections are no longer fair is itself corrosive. As the Supreme Court has often recognised, democracy must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair.

For millions of voters — particularly those whose names disappeared from rolls in Uttar Pradesh or whose constituencies in Maharashtra saw implausible surges of late-night voters — the experience has been one of exclusion and disenfranchisement. This breeds alienation, particularly among minorities and marginalised groups, who come to view the electoral process as structurally biased against them.

2. Disenfranchisement as a tool of control

The Samajwadi Party’s claim that 12 per cent of Muslim, Dalits and Yadav voters were systematically deleted from rolls in parts of Uttar Pradesh highlights the potential weaponisation of electoral administration. Disenfranchisement through bureaucratic deletion is a subtler but no less effective form of political exclusion than overt intimidation.

When voter rolls become instruments of selective exclusion, elections cease to be contests of ideas and instead become contests of manipulation. This undermines the principle of universal adult suffrage, the bedrock on which India’s democratic identity rests.

3. Opacity as an institutional culture

The Commission’s handling of transparency requests points to a deeper institutional problem: a culture of opacity. Its insistence on image-based PDFs instead of machine-readable rolls, its refusal to release CCTV footage, and its hurried amendments to restrict access to election records all signal a posture of secrecy rather than accountability.

Opacity may serve the short-term interest of insulating the Commission from criticism, but it exacts a long-term cost. Without transparency, citizens cannot independently verify the fairness of elections. Trust becomes contingent on blind faith in the institution — a faith now visibly waning.

4. Institutional drift and partisan perceptions

Once perceived as one of the most respected constitutional authorities in India, the ECI now faces accusations of institutional drift. The willingness to entertain ruling party complaints while dismissing opposition grievances has reinforced suspicions of partisan bias.

Even if the Commission is not actively partisan, the perception of partiality is itself damaging. As Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) underscored, electoral legitimacy is inseparable from the appearance of fairness. When one side believes the umpire is tilted, the entire contest is delegitimised.

5. Democratic legitimacy at risk

The broader implication of these failures is the risk of democratic illegitimacy. If citizens come to believe that outcomes are pre-determined by manipulation of rolls or machines, the incentive to participate diminishes. Low turnout, disaffection, and withdrawal from electoral politics follow — hollowing democracy from within.

This is not merely theoretical. Evidence from other democracies shows that once public confidence in electoral institutions collapses, restoring it is extraordinarily difficult. Trust, once lost, does not return quickly. India, with nearly a billion voters, cannot afford such a collapse.

6. International and constitutional reputation

As the world’s largest democracy, India’s electoral integrity has long been a source of global legitimacy. International observers and comparative scholars have often cited the Election Commission as a model of independent electoral administration. That reputation is now under strain.

Domestically, the crisis tests the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. Since free and fair elections are judicially recognised as part of the basic structure, any systemic failure in the electoral process is not simply a political problem but a constitutional breakdown.

7. The risk of normalisation

Perhaps the gravest danger is the normalisation of irregularities. When allegations of “vote chori” are routinely dismissed, when CCTV footage is destroyed as a matter of course, and when voters quietly accept that their names may vanish from rolls, manipulation becomes the new normal. Democracy then continues in form but is emptied of substance.

8. A moment of reckoning

The present moment, therefore, is a constitutional reckoning. India must decide whether its electoral democracy will remain a genuine mechanism of consent or devolve into a hollow ritual managed by an unaccountable bureaucracy. The outcome will not only determine the credibility of the 2024 elections but will shape the trajectory of Indian democracy for decades to come.

Section VII- Pathways to reform

The depth of the current crisis makes it clear that cosmetic adjustments will not suffice. If India’s electoral democracy is to retain legitimacy, structural reforms are essential — reforms that restore transparency, re-establish accountability, and rebuild public trust in the Election Commission of India (ECI).

1. Restoring transparency

Transparency is the first casualty of the Commission’s current posture and must be the first area of reform. Steps include:

• Machine-readable electoral rolls: Rolls must be published in open, searchable formats (CSV/Excel) to allow independent verification by parties, civil society, and researchers. Privacy concerns can be addressed by masking sensitive details while retaining fields necessary for scrutiny.
• Public access to CCTV footage: Footage from polling stations and counting centres should be retained for at least one year and made available to parties and courts as a matter of right.
• Publication of Form 17C data: Polling station-wise turnout and vote tallies must be released promptly in standardised, verifiable formats.
• Rollback of restrictive amendments: The December 2024 changes to Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, which curtailed access to records, should be repealed.

2. Independent forensic audits

Confidence in the electoral process requires independent verification of its technical infrastructure:

• EVMs and VVPATs should be subject to periodic, randomised forensic audits by independent technical experts, with reports placed in the public domain.
• Symbol Loading Units (SLUs), identified by the Vote for Democracy (VFD) report as particularly vulnerable, must be independently certified after every election.
• Random hand-counts of VVPAT slips across a significant sample (well beyond the current 5 per constituency) should be mandated by law.

3. Judicial review of immunity

The sweeping immunity granted to Commissioners under the 2023 Act requires urgent reconsideration. The Supreme Court, either through a direct challenge or in the course of electoral litigation, must clarify whether such immunity is compatible with constitutional principles of accountability. A constitutional body entrusted with safeguarding democracy cannot be placed entirely beyond judicial scrutiny.

4. Decentralisation of electoral management

The VFD report’s recommendation for decentralisation deserves serious attention. State Election Commissions, which already oversee local body elections, could be entrusted with conducting Assembly polls, leaving the central ECI to focus on Lok Sabha elections. This would diffuse concentration of power and reduce the perception of centralised bias.

5. Parliamentary oversight

Parliament’s role in overseeing the ECI has been minimal. A Standing Committee on Electoral Integrity could be instituted, tasked with examining post-election reports, investigating irregularities, and summoning Commissioners for testimony. Such oversight would not compromise independence but would reinforce accountability.

6. Strengthening legal remedies

• Time-bound adjudication: Election petitions must be disposed of within six months, failing which the winning candidate’s election could be provisionally suspended.
• Collective remedies: Mechanisms should exist for systemic irregularities — such as mass deletions or unexplained turnout surges — which go beyond the scope of individual constituency petitions.
• Criminal liability: Sections 32 (RPA 1950) and 134A (RPA 1951) must be enforced rigorously against officials guilty of misconduct, and liability must extend upward to supervisory officers.

7. Protecting voter rights

At the centre of reforms must be the voter. Measures should include:

• Statutory guarantee against arbitrary deletions: Voter names should not be removed from rolls without written notice and opportunity for appeal.
• Grievance redressal mechanisms: Voters must have accessible, time-bound remedies (including digital portals and helplines) to address roll discrepancies.
• Independent observers: Appointment of citizen observers to monitor disenfranchisement and report directly to the judiciary, not only to the Commission.

8. Rebuilding institutional credibility

Ultimately, no reform will succeed without cultural change within the Commission itself. The ECI must return to its original ethos: that of a fiercely independent, fearless institution guarding democracy. Commissioners must adopt a posture of humility and responsiveness, rather than defensiveness and denial.

The Commission’s prestige was built not on legal immunities but on moral authority — on the perception that it stood above politics. Restoring that authority requires openness, candour, and a willingness to confront failures.

9. A reform agenda for the future

The path forward is clear:

• Transparency in data,
• independent audits of technology,
• judicially reviewable accountability,
• parliamentary oversight, and
• voter-centric protections.

Together, these reforms can re-anchor India’s electoral democracy in constitutional principle and public trust. Without them, the risk is not merely of flawed elections but of a gradual hollowing of the democratic state itself.

10. Ensuring fair and transparent revision of electoral rolls

The ongoing controversy around Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) highlights the dangers of abrupt, opaque, and overly aggressive roll-cleaning exercises. Structural reforms must therefore include safeguards to ensure that revisions are conducted in a fair, transparent, and citizen-friendly manner:

• Predictable timing and notice: Large-scale revisions must not be sprung on voters without adequate preparation or awareness. Sufficient notice and staggered timelines must be given to avoid mass confusion.
• Clarity of procedure: Instructions to Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and supervisory officers must be detailed, explicit, and made public — including criteria for acceptance, rejection, and scrutiny of enumeration forms.
• Correction opportunities: Prefilled forms based on existing data should allow voters to correct errors, rather than replicating inaccuracies and carrying them forward.
• Transparency in disclosures: The ECI must publish real-time data on forms submitted, documents attached, and grounds for rejection. Abruptly stopping disclosure, as in Bihar’s SIR, fuels suspicion and undermines trust.
• Respecting voter choice: Voters who migrate temporarily must not be disenfranchised at their place of origin without due choice, just as NRIs, defence personnel, and parliamentarians are allowed to exercise preference.

11. Avoiding overreach on citizenship questions

Article 326 of the Constitution makes clear that citizenship is a condition of eligibility to vote, but it is not for the Election Commission to embark on a parallel determination of citizenship. Former Election Commissioner, Ashok Lavasa, rightly noted in his piece with The Tribune that separating pre-2003 and post-2003 electors on “presumed citizenship” grounds was fallacious and unnecessarily inflammatory. Future reforms must ensure that:

• The ECI focuses strictly on eligibility and residence, leaving citizenship determinations to the legal and administrative processes already in place.
• No elector is treated as “ineligible” merely because of “permanent migration” — at most, such a voter should be shifted across rolls, not erased.

12. Embedding proportionality in electoral roll management

A comprehensive exercise such as SIR should not resemble a punitive raid or enforcement sweep. Instead, it must be designed as a civil, rule-based, participatory process aimed at correcting errors without alienating voters. Key principles include:

• Compassionate administration: As Lavasa observes, the Commission must adopt the same empathetic approach that it has historically followed in balancing accuracy with inclusion.
• Weeding without harming the crop: In Lavasa’s metaphor, voter roll cleansing should emulate a farmer removing weeds without damaging the standing crop. The integrity of the roll must be secured without undermining citizens’ confidence in their right to vote.
• Public cooperation: The ECI must actively enlist citizen cooperation, rather than impose a top-down compliance burden that leaves voters scrambling to “save” their franchise.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Republic’s democratic soul

The present crisis surrounding the Election Commission of India is not a passing controversy, nor a partisan quarrel. It strikes at the heart of the constitutional promise that the people of India are governed by their freely expressed will. The allegations of manipulated voter rolls, opaque procedures, and selective disenfranchisement are not just administrative failures — they are existential threats to democracy itself.

At the core lies a constitutional paradox. The Commission is vested under Article 324 with the most sweeping mandate in Indian public law: the “superintendence, direction and control” of elections. It is the sole institution charged with guaranteeing the sanctity of the franchise. And yet, when confronted with systemic irregularities, it has responded with denial, deflection, and a demand for affidavits, as though accountability were optional. This posture not only undermines confidence in the institution but contradicts the spirit of constitutional jurisprudence, which has consistently held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Representation of the People Acts (1950 and 1951) place exclusive responsibility for electoral rolls and conduct of polls in the Commission and its officers. Judicial precedent has repeatedly affirmed that responsibility cannot be outsourced: the acts and omissions of Booth Level Officers, EROs, or DEOs are legally those of the Commission itself. To suggest otherwise is to erode the very chain of accountability on which democratic governance depends.

The 2023 law granting Commissioners sweeping immunity from civil and criminal liability has only deepened this accountability gap. It insulates those at the helm of the electoral process even as field officials remain exposed. The effect is an inversion of constitutional principle: the higher the authority, the weaker the responsibility. This cannot stand in a democracy committed to the rule of law.

Beyond the legal terrain, the implications are starker still. Public trust in the ballot is waning. For voters whose names were deleted in Uttar Pradesh or whose constituencies in Maharashtra and Odisha saw implausible surges in turnout, disenfranchisement is no longer an abstraction but a lived experience. For minorities disproportionately targeted, the erosion of the right to vote amounts to an assault on equal citizenship. In the long run, the normalisation of such irregularities risks hollowing democracy into ritual without substance.

Yet, the crisis also presents an opportunity — a chance to rebuild electoral integrity on firmer foundations. Transparency must be restored through machine-readable rolls, independent audits, and access to election records. Judicial review must strike down or narrow the immunity clause. Parliament must exercise oversight, and voters must be armed with enforceable rights against arbitrary exclusion. Most of all, the Commission itself must return to the ethos of independence, humility, and moral courage that once made it one of the most respected institutions of the republic.

India’s democratic journey has been extraordinary, not least because it defied global scepticism that universal suffrage could take root in a poor, diverse, postcolonial society. That achievement must not be squandered. At this juncture, the question is stark: will India’s elections remain the world’s largest exercise in democratic consent, or will they slide into a managed ritual shorn of credibility?

The answer depends on whether the Election Commission of India can reclaim its role not as a passive coordinator but as the constitutional sentinel of the people’s sovereignty. For in the end, elections are not about parties, politicians, or even governments. They are about the citizen’s simple, sacred act of marking a vote — secure in the knowledge that it counts, that it matters, that it cannot be stolen. To preserve that faith is to preserve the republic’s very soul.

 Related:

EXCLUSIVE: Solid empirical evidence of tampering in Voter’s List mustn’t let us forget EVM Manipulations: Computer Expert Madhav Deshpande

A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India

Thousands of discrepancies in UP Voters Lists of 2022, widespread fraud alleges Akhilesh Yadav, former UP chief minister

Major Irregularities in 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Polls; Vote for Democracy

The post The Stolen Franchise: Why the Election Commission cannot escape accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the results announced by the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) election commission early on Monday, April 28, Nitish Kumar of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) secured 1,702 votes to win the post of president. Next was Shikha Swaraj of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), his closest competitor who secured 1,430 votes while the Students’ Federation of India (SFI)-supported Tayabba Ahmed polled 918 votes.

Manisha of the Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF) won the post of vice-president by securing 1,150 votes, ahead of the ABVP’s Nittu Goutham who polled 1,116 votes. The DSF also bagged the general secretary’s post, with Munteha Fatima polling 1,520 votes, ahead of the ABVP’s Kunal Rai who secured 1,406 votes.

What has drawn much comment, analysis and criticism is the ABVP’s clinching the post of joint secretary, with Vaibhav Meena polling 1,518 votes, ahead of AISA’s Naresh Kumar (1,433 votes) and Progressive Students’ Association (PSA) candidate Nigam Kumari (1,256 votes).

This year’s election saw a contentious split in the Left alliance, with the AISA and the DSF contesting as one bloc while the SFI and the All India Students’ Federation (AISF) formed a coalition with the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA) and the PSA.

In the midst of this the majoritarian saffron outfit to whom much violence has been attributed on campus ABVP struck gold. Meena’s win marked the first time the ABVP has bagged a central panel post since Saurav Sharma’s victory on the same post in 2015-16. Before that it was in 2000-01 that ABVP’s Sandeep Mahapatra had emerged victorious as president. The ABVP contested the election independently in 2025.

In the March 2024 polls, held after a four-year gap following the outbreak of Covid, the United Left won three of the four central panel posts while BAPSA — which had contested independently — secured one. In that sense, losing a critical post to the ABVP is a matter of concern.

While welcoming and celebrating the victory of its alliance on three central panel posts, AISA also raised concerns over the ABVP’s narrow win for the post of joint secretary and called it a challenge to the Left’s dominance on campus.

Given the low margin of just 85 votes that took the ABVP to victory winning the post of joint secretary, clearly this absence of unity made an impact. Over the past decade and more there has been a serious structural assault on the institution and allegations of corruption in the admission process to ensure BJP loyalists make it to faculty positions and this then, acts as a foothold for the ruling regime on campus. Given that, the fact that the Left has returned to its leadership position in the JNUSU is significant said the AISA said in a statement.

AISA also termed this as the alliance’s victory a mandate against the government’s New Education Policy which, it said, undermined public-funded education and discriminated against marginalised groups.

On the contrary, the ABVP called its victory “a historic shift in JNU’s political landscape” and said it broke the Left’s “so-called red fortress”.

“This victory in JNU is not only proof of the ABVP’s proactive hard work and students’ faith and commitment to nationalist thinking but it is also a victory for all students who consider education as the foundation for nation-rebuilding. This is a democratic revolution against the so-called ideological tyranny established by the Left for years in JNU,” the ABVP said in a statement.

Meena, the newly-elected joint secretary, said, “I am not at all considering this victory as my personal achievement or gain but it’s a massive and fascinating victory of tribal consciousness and the nationalist ideology, which has been suppressed by the Left for years.” “This success is an embodiment of students who want to advance in education by wholeheartedly upholding cultural identity and the spirit of nation re-building,” he added.

The polls, held on April 25, witnessed about 5,500 of the 7,906 eligible students casting their votes. While the turnout was slightly lower than the 73 per cent recorded in 2023, it was among the highest since 2012.

Twenty-nine candidates were in the fray for the four central panel posts and 200 for the 44 councillor seats.

A former student activist from JNU, Banojyotsana Lahiri put it aptly: “JNU elections unlike popular perception are never easy. The administration has systematically closed down every democratic space, they have altered the character of JNU, introduced courses like Management and Engineering, changed the process of selection. Since 2016, after the movement, JNU students had forged a broader unity to fight the ABVP-Admin-RSS nexus. While that was the need of hour at that point, it gave ABVP the whole opposition space to occupy. After 2016, for the first time, the broader left alliance broke this time. AISA-DSF fought separately, SFI-BAPSA-PSA fought separately. Other Left organisations put up candidates too. There was quite a bit of confusion among students. Votes obviously split. And after bitter and resolute struggle finally, AISA and DSF alliance WON three major Central Panel posts and most councillors. ABVP only managed to make dent in Joint Secretary, because of sharp vote splitting between the left forces.” In her opinion now SFI will occupy the opposition space.

There has however been speculation of whether the SFI’s decision not to unite with the wider left has anything to do with a tempered and confused central party line that is not prepared to unite against the RSS-BJP centrally and unequivocally. 

Satarupra, a CPI-M member and former SFI elected leader of JNUSU opined, “Whatever ABVP gained in this election must be analysed thoroughly. Those of us who worked in a JNUSU with similar composition in the central panel posts, and the students, teachers of JNU who survived one of the most notorious attacks of the Sangh Parivaar, exactly 10 years back, knows it well what they are capable of. From the lessons of that time, it is a must to keep a close watch on them as well as to not allow any room to them to attack the university and its students, teachers and staff. In 2015, the Left contested separately and had a fragmented mandate in the union. Despite that, after the election results were declared, instead of a ‘Victory March’, we had a ‘Unity March’. The exemplary unity with #StandwithJNU movement followed later. However, the sheer fact of ABVP won one post in the central panel was enough for the progressive forces to forge a unity from the very beginning. I hope that tradition will continue in the days ahead in spirit and actions. Lastly, what happened in this election needs a deep analysis and the entire Left needs to introspect and be accountable for what unfolded, rather than putting the burden on one organization and singling it out.”

Kavitra Krishnan formerly with the CPIML has singled out the SFI for its failure to forge unity against fascist forces. As have other academics previously from JNU. 

Either way one looks at it, the JNUSU polls are closely watched and do signal a weathercock for how the left works and strategies, nationally. With both the West Bengal and Kerala elections due in 2026, this could mean a different reality from what has been expected under the rather fragile, almost non-existent INDIA alliance.

Related   

“We have come to save public education, shoot us if you will,” feisty JNUSU president Dhananjay challenges Delhi police

When and why JNUSU President Sai Balaji wrote an open letter to PM Modi

Standing Up For JNU

What Exactly Happened in JNU ?

The post Left maintains JNUSU foothold, absence of alliance gives ABVP a chance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This statement from the ECI came in response to a right to information (RTI) request submitted by Venkatesh Nayak, director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, in which he pointed out that as per procedure outlined in paragraph 1.12, read along with paragraph 7.1.2, of the 2023 edition of the handbook for presiding officers published on the ECI website, the presiding officers should have information about the constituency-wise total number of pre-numbered slips issued by them during both assembly and Lok Sabha elections.

However, the ECI said, “lt is to inform you that information as sought by you is not available in the Commission.” Nayak, an intrepid RTI activist, emphasised that the ECI’s response is “bewildering, to say the least”, as the commission, being the apex election management body, is vested with both Constitutional authority and statutory powers to conduct elections.

“They are required to be in full control of the electoral machinery, and that includes information flows from the constituency level to Nirvachan Sadan through the CEOs, ROs, and election observers. It is unimaginable that the information which I sought has not been reported to the ECI. Even if one were to concede, for the sake of argument, that their reply is accurate, the RTI Act empowers them to request the information from the source where it is available in order to decide whether or not it should be disclosed. At the very least, they can transfer the application to such offices for disposal at the click of a button,” maintained Nayak.

Paragraph 7.1.2 states that “a few minutes before the hour appointed for closing the poll, announce to all those within the limits of the polling station who are waiting to vote that they will be allowed to cast their votes in turn. Distribute slips signed by you in full to all such electors, which should be serially numbered from Serial No. 1 onwards, according to the number of electors standing in the queue at that hour.

“The last elector should be given Slip No. 1, and the next voter in front of him/her should receive Slip No. 2, and so on. Continue the poll even beyond the closing hour until all these electors have cast their votes. Depute police or other staff to ensure that no one is allowed to join the queue after the appointed closing hour. This can be effectively managed if the distribution of slips to all such electors is commenced from the last elector standing in the queue and proceeded backwards towards its head”.

Annexure 52 of the handbook explains that the presiding officer’s diary should contain a variety of details about the polling station, including materials supplied and used, machines supplied and used, polling agents present, voter turnout details, how many were allowed to cast ‘tendered votes’, the number of challenged votes, and the number of votes cast in the polling station during the following time slots: 7-9 am, 9-11 am, 11 am-1 pm, 1-3 pm, and 3-5 pm. The diary should also record the number of slips issued at the close of the polling hour to electors standing in queue.

This information is also recorded in the report of the sector officer, whose format is provided in annexure 6 of the sector officers’ handbook.

According to data from the ECI, the number of registered voters for the state elections held on 20 November 2024 was 97,793,350 (nearly 97.80 crore), with 64,592,508 (about 64.60 crore) individuals casting their votes. In comparison, during the Lok Sabha election, the number of registered voters was 92,890,445 (92.90 core approx.), and the votes cast totalled 56,969,710 (56.97 crore approx.).

Based on these figures, the number of registered voters in the state increased by nearly 50 lakh (49,02,905), while the number of votes cast went up by over 75 lakh (76,22,7980).

The Congress party had, in December 2024, filed a complaint with the ECI, but the latter rejected the charges, stating that the additions were legitimate. The party had also raised concerns about the surge in voter turnout in Maharashtra on polling day, calling for an explanation from the ECI.

In a letter to the ECI, the Congress has also highlighted an “inexplicable increase” in voter turnout between 5 pm and the final voter percentage announced by the ECI at 11.30 pm on the day of polling. The Congress also pointed out that, of the 50 assembly seats where there was an average increase of 50,000 voters, the ruling Mahayuti secured victory in 47.

In December, the ECI clarified that the increase in voter turnout from 5 pm to 11.45 pm was “normal”, with Maharashtra’s chief electoral officer, S. Chockalingam explaining that the 7 per cent increase in voter turnout in the last hour of polling for the assembly election was not a surge, as claimed by the Opposition, but an “average” process.

However, the ECI has repeatedly declined to take action on many RTIs that Nayak filed last year. He explained that public disclosure of not only the data about the tokens distributed, but also the two-hourly voter turnout figures recorded by presiding officers and sector officers, is crucial to determine whether the ECI’s final voter turnout figures are accurate.

“Merely disclosing Form 17C data will not help clarify voter turnout trends that occurred on polling day. Transparency advocates must press for the disclosure of the granular data. The ECI can do itself a favour by disclosing the two-hourly voter turnout data and the number of tokens distributed before the close of polling. This will help clear all doubt about the final voter turnout figures,” said Nayak.

Related:

Is India’s unique experiment on people’s democracy with the right to universal franchise being lampooned by a compliant Election Commission?

Congress alleges anomalous voter turnout surge in Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024 in memorandum submitted to ECI

Congress raises alarm over manipulated voter rolls in Maharashtra Assembly elections

The post No info on pre-numbered slips issued during LS, assembly polls: ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a two page letter made public today, Kejriwal states that “in the said summons it is not clear as to what capacity I am being summoned.” Besides, he says, the said summons fails to provide details in relation to the File bearing F. No. EClR/ HIUJJ/ 14/2022” which is the criminal complaint in the liquor policy case.

He also states that the “said summons does not specify whether l run being summoned as an individual or in my official capacity as Chief Minister of Delhi or as National Convenor of AAP and appears to be in the nature of a fishing and roving inquiry.” Two senior members of his party, one the Delhi Deputy CM, Manish Sisodia and also, Rajya Sabha MP, Sanjay Singh have already been arrested in the same case. Sisodia’s bail was turned down by the Supreme Court this week.

In the letter, Kejriwal seeks to explain that the “summons appear to be motivated and issued for extraneous considerations. As soon as the summons were issued, on the  afternoon of October 30, 2023, leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) started making statements that he would soon be summoned and arrested. By the evening of October 30, Kejriwal had received the summons.

Kejriwal finally explains (or states) in the letter that as “incumbent Chief Minister of the Government of NCT or Delhi and National Convenor or the Aam Aadmi Party, i.e. the ruling party in the state of National Capital territory (NCT and Punjab.” The fact that there are five states in the Country, i.e. Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarb, Rajasthan and Telangana are heading for elections and he is the chief campaigner for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), he is required to travel and hence cannot be present before the ED.

Related:

Bhagwant Mann, Arvind Kejriwal celebrate PunjAAP, share common vision

UP Assembly Elections: Lakhimpur Kheri witness allegedly attacked by BJP goons celebrating victory

Forcing the EC to cancel elections is unprecedented, unconstitutional: Arvind Kejriwal

The post Withdraw “politically motivated” summons, need to campaign for state elections: Arvind Kejriwal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, the discussion of One Nation-Election is poised to come back, for two reasons. One is the affinity of the top leadership of the ruling party with the idea of One Nation- One Election. Another reason is that the recent committee constituted by the government on One Nation-One Election is going to submit its report. While that might take time, this article aims to present what has already been said by various committees on the issue of One Nation-One Election.

Before that, there are some provisions of Constitution regarding the duration of Council of People – Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of the State, that need to be understood.

Article 83 deals with Duration of Houses of Parliament. It states that Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; the Lok Sabha however can be dissolved before the period of five years from the date of first meeting of the Lok Sabha. Article 83(2) states that the Lok Sabha cannot be continued for a period of more than five years except in cases of proclamation of Emergency.

Article 85 deals with Sessions of Parliament, Prorogation and Dissolution. It states that President shall summon houses of Parliament to meet, and may dissolve the House of People i.e., Lok Sabha.

Article 172 deals with duration of State Legislature. It states that Legislative Assembly of a state can continue for not more than 5 years unless it is dissolved sooner. The five-year period can be extended in cases of proclamation of emergency. Article 174 states that the Governor shall, from time to time, summon the legislature to meet and may dissolve the legislative assembly.

What does these articles have to do with the issue of simultaneous elections?

These articles prevent legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha to continue for more than 5 years unless in case of an Emergency. And currently, if the country is to go through the process of simultaneous elections, say in May 2024, Telangana which has its elections scheduled in December 2023 will have to wait until May 2024, with the same government in power despite crossing the five years mark, set by the Constitution.

The constitutional way is to amend these articles to allow the extension of tenure of legislative assemblies for the purpose of simultaneous elections. The same requirement for amendment would apply if the tenure of Lok Sabha is to be extended to make simultaneous elections possible.

While the ones discussed above are the articles that may need to be amended, according to various committees, in order to make simultaneous elections possible, Article 356 of the Constitution was used to disturb the flow of simultaneous elections in 1968 and 1969, starting the chain of unsynchronised elections in the Country. Article 356 deals with the power of President in case of failure of Constitutional Machinery in State. It states that if the President, on the receipt of a Report from the Governor of a state, is satisfied that the a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the Provisions of the Constitution, the president may proclaim that all the powers of the governor- the head of the executive of the state would now be vested in her or declare that the powers of legislature would be exercisable under the authority of the Parliament. This, in popular parlance, is called imposition of President’s Rule in a State.

In the landmark Supreme Court case of SR Bommai vs. Union of India, the court held that the President’s power under this article to dismiss a state government is not absolute and that this power should only be exercised only after such proclamation is approved by both the houses of Parliament. This acted as a check on the powers of President to dismiss a legislative assembly of the state, like it was done in 1968 and 1969 and in other instances thereafter.

Given that this is the process, let us now understand what different committees have recommended on the issue of simultaneous elections.

I. Law Commission of India- 170^th Report on Reform of Electoral Laws. May 1999.

This committee, in essence, recommended the amendments to the Constitution to make simultaneous elections possible. An important remark that the committee made while vouching for simultaneous elections is that the situations and eventualities of the using Article 356 in future cannot be conceived and provided for. It however relied on the SR Bommai case to argue that the usage of Article 356 has come down considerably. The committee also seems to have recognised the challenges in making simultaneous elections a reality. It stated “Undoubtedly, the desired goal of one election in every five years cannot be achieved overnight in the given circumstances. It has to be achieved in stages.”

Another interesting recommendation by the committee was that it stated that the results of Legislative Assemblies and Lok Sabha be withheld until the expiry of the term of legislative assembly provided the withholding period is not more than 6 months.

To understand this recommendation, let us take the example of Jharkhand, which is scheduled to have the elections for its state assembly in the period of November-December 2024. If this recommendation was to be followed, the General Elections of Lok Sabha that are to be held in May 2024 and the Jharkhand state elections should be conducted simultaneously. However, the results to Jharkhand state elections would only be declared in the period of November-December 2024. That leave a six-seven month lacunae. The committee’s recommendations leave out various issues such as who would govern the state during the period in which election results are being withheld; if the chance is given to the existing government, whether it would be unduly disadvantageous to the opposition in elections etc.

The committee gave limited sets of recommendations without a comprehensive analysis of the consequences.

II. 79^th Report by DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE on Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to the House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies, December 2015

This report, presented to the Rajya Sabha and tabled in the Lok Sabha in December 2015 exclusively dealt with the issue of Simultaneous Elections.  One of the main reasons for needing simultaneous elections, as stated by the committee, was that elections have become big budget affair and expensive and in most of the cases, expenditures by the candidates are exceeding the ceiling fixed by the Election Commission of India. Another reason that the committee stated is that elections lead to imposition of the Model Code of Conduct in the poll bound state or area, and such imposition puts on hold the entire development programme and activities of the Union and State government in the poll bound state affecting normal governance, leading to policy paralysis and governance deficit. Additionally, reasons that public life can be left undisturbed when elections are conducted one time and that simultaneous elections would free the crucial manpower which is often deployed for prolonged periods on election duties- were also given.

The report listed different suggestions given by the Election Commission of India, and suggestions by different stakeholders such as political parties. The ECI suggested that, in order to avoid premature dissolution of Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion moved against the government in office should also necessarily include a further ‘confidence motion’ in favour of a government to be headed by a named individual as the future Prime Minister and the voting should take place for the 2 motions together, with the same process applying to state legislative assemblies as well.

It also suggested that if a situation arises where dissolution of Lok Sabha cannot be avoided and if the remainder of the term of Lok Sabha is not long, then the president could carry out the administration of the country on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers to be appointed by him till the time the next house is constituted at the prescribed time. If the remainder of the term of the Lok Sabha is long, then fresh elections may be held for the rest of what would have been the original term.

The ECI also suggested that the bye-elections that become due in a particular year could be conducted in two windows of one-and-a-half months each. The ECI also suggested that if these proposals are not feasible, all elections falling in a particular period of the year could be conducted in a particular period of the year.

Political Parties that were consulted, according to the committee, felt that simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies is a cost-effective noble proposition but difficult to implement because of our constitutional arrangement. The parties also suggested that the elected government are chosen by people, and they fail for practical reasons, therefore, the will of people should be respected at any cost. The CPI stated that the idea is unscientific and impracticable. The AIMIM opined on similar lines, so did the Nationalist Congress Party and the Indian National Congress. The Shiromani Akali Dal, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Khazagam (DMDK) supported the idea with some suggestions while the Indian Union Muslim League supported the idea outright.

This committee too, echoed the observations made by the Law Commission of India report of 1999, and stated that Simultaneous Elections could be conducted in India but such state of affairs will have to be reached in stages. The committee observed that there is a possibility under the Representation of People Act, 1951 where the election to State Legislative Assemblies could be held 6 months before. The Committee also proposed that there could be two phases of elections, one at mid-term of Lok Sabha wherein elections to all state assemblies whose terms end prior to or after a period of six months to one year from appointed date can be clubbed together. Rest of the state assemblies’ elections, the committee recommended, could be conducted along with the general elections.

Essentially, the committee recommended that elections could be conducted in two phases without having to conduct state elections almost every year. The committee finally stated that it is conscious of the fact that “holding simultaneous elections may not be feasible in 2016 or even a decade” but it expressed confidence that a solution will be found to reduce the frequency of elections which relieve people and government machinery being tired of frequent electoral processes.

III. Draft Report on Simultaneous Elections by Law Commission of India, 30^th August, 2018

This report dealt, in detail, with issues relating to simultaneous elections, and various issues and impediments associated with the process. The report stated that the current framework of Indian Constitution does not allow the conduct of simultaneous elections, and if there are to be constitutional amendments, at least 50% of the states should be ratifying such amendments.

To avoid disruptions to state assemblies and Lok Sabha, the committee recommended that an introduction of a constructive vote of no confidence will give the government a better stability and the government will only be ousted when the member or the group of members come forward with the proposal to form an alternative government.

In case of a hung in the Lok Sabhaa i.e., a dead lock as no party gets a majority, and even the largest party is not able to form the government, the report suggested mid-term elections. The committee however did not apply same logic to state elections. It stated that in case of a situation where government is not being formed, President’s rule under Article 356 could be imposed in the state for a maximum period of 3 years. It also noted that in case of mid-term elections, the concept of remainder term should be applicable to the house. This means that if mid-term elections are to be conducted, 2 years after previous elections, the winning party of the mid-term elections will only remain in power for 3 years.

This report’s recommendations to arrive at simultaneous elections to both Look Sabha and State assemblies banked themselves on political consensus and constitutional amendments. If parties agree, state legislative assemblies falling 6 months prior to or after the Lok Sabha Elections could be conducted at the same time, and for the rest of the assemblies, a Constitutional amendment will fulfil the requirement by curtailing or extending the tenure of such assembly. In case if these are not feasible, the commission noted that all elections falling in a calendar year could be conducted at one time.

This report too, stood on the shoulders of its predecessors, in recommending various ways to conduct simultaneous elections. It essentially did not contribute any novelty to the discourse around simultaneous elections as much as it revisited and reiterated established perspectives without broadening the discussion.

The government now formed a fourth committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind is set to examine the feasibility of simultaneous elections, yet again.

Most of the opposition recognises that simultaneous elections will save money but also feels that it is not feasible to conduct them.

One important question that arises is as to why the committees and commissions that are discussed above never saw the imposition of President’s rule for whatever time in state to save up some money for the exchequer and unburden the government machinery as a disproportionate step when it is juxtaposed with people’s right to be governed by an elected government, all the time. The same goes for the recommendations regarding the houses functioning for the remained term. If the Model Code of Conduct hampers developmental activities, the remainder term too hampers such activities if the government is to be there for a 3-year term instead of its usual 5 years. It also could be argued that the fact that we do not have a set synchronisation in elections is a feature of our evolution as a democracy and federal structure.

Different power structures i.e., state government and the centre are judged differently as much as possible, during different elections. Since the ruling establishment has called for simultaneous elections multiple times, the discourse on this issue is only going to increase, as long as the current establishment stays in power. However, the constitutional amendments and any step towards simultaneous elections awaits various challenges ranging from political parties’ opposition to legal challenges.

Related:

One Nation, one election is a regression, a denial of democratisation of the marginalised

Election Commission of India receives 467 suggestions and objections over the proposed delimitation exercise in Assam

The post Analysing the Feasibility of Simultaneous Elections in India: A Review of Committee Recommendations and Constitutional Implications appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the first time, reportedly since 1988, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has become the only party to have 100 members in the Rajya Sabha. It reached the milestone after winning two seats in Assam and one in Tripura on March 31.

The BJP and its ally the United People’s Party Liberal (UPPL) have won all four Rajya Sabha seats from Tripura, Nagaland, and Assam. For the first time in Parliament’s history, the Congress does not have a presence from Northeast India, in the Upper House. According to a news report in The Times of India, the “BJP won the Tripura seat on the strength of its numbers and the Nagaland seat uncontested.”

It was alleged “cross-voting and invalid opposition votes” in Assam helped it win the two seats, with its ally. Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma however was jubilant, saying the party’s “strategy was to bank on the conscience of legislators. We have got seven votes from Congress MLAs.” According to TOI, “In the 126- member assembly, BJP and its allies were short of four votes needed to win both Rajya Sabha seats, while the opposition appeared to be comfortably placed to win the one seat it was contesting. From BJP Pabitra Margherita and UPPL’s Rwngra Narzary won the two seats from Assam, and Congress candidate, the sitting Rajya Sabha MP Ripun Bora, lost.

We won both the Rajya Sabha seats from Assam (one by the BJP and other by UPPL,our partner ) by a huge margin of 11 and 9 votes respectively @AmitShah @JPNadda @blsanthosh

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) March 31, 2022

Now the NDA “holds 13 of the 14 seats in the Upper House from the region” and one seat from Assam is held by an Independent, stated the news report. From  Nagaland S Phangnon Konyak of BJP won uncontested, and is the first woman to be elected to the Rajya Sabha from the state. In Tripura BJP’s state president Manik Saha defeated the  CPM’s Bhanu Lal Saha.   

According to news reports counting of votes was delayed after “the Congress approached the Election Commission seeking to invalidate the votes of 5 NDA MLAs” who they accused of publicly revealing their ballot papers. This was rejected by the Election Commission. However, the Congress has reportedly suspended its two MLAs “after one of them voted for the ruling party candidate and another ‘deliberately’ marked his ballot paper in such a way that it got cancelled”. The party demanded action against its MLA Sashikanta Das who had been suspended in December. He had reportedly said he will vote for the ruling BJP-led coalition candidates in the Rajya Sabha polls “for the cause of development”. According to news reports, the Congress also sought action against “BPF legislator Durgadas Boro and three BJP MLAs – Hitendra Nath Goswami, Ganesh Limbu and Sanjay Kishan.”

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) has won two of the three seats in Kerala and Congress won the remaining seat. The Aam Aadmi Party has bagged all five seats from Punjab and BJP has won another seat from Himachal Pradesh taking its tally to five. According to a report in the Financial Express,  A A Rahim of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) and P Santhosh Kumar CPI Kannur district secretary were elected on behalf of the LDF, and Jebi Mather of the Congress was elected from the Opposition.

Related:

No deaths due to NRC: Assam CM’s bizarre claim!
Congress to introduce private member bill seeking rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits 

The post Rajya Sabha Election 2022: 5 seats each for AAP, BJP, two LDF, 1 Congress appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as Kerala voted to elect the next state government on April 6, a heated discussion ensued over the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, yet again. After he cast his vote in Kottayam, Nair Service Society (NSS) general secretary G. Sukumaran Nair on Tuesday told the media that Sabarimala Ayyappa devotees were “still bitter” about the events that “hurt their faith”. Nair added that “there should be a government that stood for values and faith” reported The Hindu. 

According to The NewsMinute, Nair,  added that “people wish to vote for those upholding secularism, democracy, social justice and those who protect the faith of people, which the LDF government was not able to do. The protests and opposition of people in the Sabarimala issue have not died down.” Both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress’ campaigns have mentioned the Sabarimala issue. Even Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said figuratively in Kannur that deities of the land, including Lord Ayyappa, would bless the Left Democratic Front (LDF) for ministering to the people in the time of catastrophe, reported the Hindu.

In February, the Kerala government had decided to withdraw “cases of not serious criminal nature’’ registered in connection with the Sabarimala and anti-CAA protests.  According to media reports, the Kerala police had registered an estimated 17,000 cases, against around 68,000 people from different Hindutva outfits as accused, in connection with the Sabarimala protests in 2018 following the Supreme Court decision allowing entry of women to the Ayyappa temple. The citizenship laws that led to widespread protests across the country, resulted in the registration of 530 cases from January to March, 2020 in Kerala. The Congress party had also announced that it would withdraw all cases related to both issues if voted to power.

According to the TNM report, the BJP state president K Surendran even went on to call CM Pinarayi Vijayan an ‘asuran’ (demon) saying he changed his stance on Sabarimala as he fears the government will lose, saying, “The change of statement shows how frail he (Pinarayi Vijayan) is. It is Pinarayi Vijayan and his ‘asura ganangal’ (group of demons) who destroyed Sabarimala. The state government helped the Maneethi Sangam to ascend Sabarimala. In the cover of darkness, Pinarayi and his ‘asura ganangal’ took the women in an ambulance to Sabarimala. People won’t forget this. Now by just saying that gods are with him, people won’t consider it. He is the biggest ‘asuran’.”  

However, the reactions after that came fast and thick, barbs came from opposition Leader Ramesh Chennithala who said the CM was late to “atone for his trespasses against the Ayyappa faith”. Congress leader A. K. Antony said the CM “should apologise” to believers for “desecrating” the Sabarimala temple by “ham-fistedly” enacting the 2018 Supreme Court verdict permitting women, irrespective of their age, to worship at Sabarimala, stated the news report. While Ex CM Oommen Chandy said  Vijayan’s ‘invoking’ of Ayyappa faith “was unconvincing’ and Sabarimala devotees would ‘reject his election day overture.’  Meanwhile, the BJP State president K. Surendran reportedly said that NSS’ chief “had given a clear message to the people”. Surendran also said A. K. Antony and Oommen Chandy “were weeping crocodile tears for Sabarimala devotees”. Surendran went a step ahead and told the media that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s police had ‘secretly’ and ‘rapidly’ conveyed “activist women” to Sabarimala Ayyappa temple under cover of darkness in 2018.

According to CPI State secretary Kanam Rajendran, the NSS general secretary might have crossed a line if confirmed that he had made a political statement on polling day. The Hindu report quoted Rajendran as saying, “No other social organisation leader had attempted to broadcast their political preference on voting day. BJP and Congress had harped on about Sabarimala because they had nothing else to say.” The TNM report recalled how the issue of women’s entry into Sabarimala temple had started in 2018 when a Supreme Court verdict allowed women of all ages to worship at the temple in Pathanamthitta district. The state was witness to many protests soon  after two women entered the hill shrine following the Supreme Court verdict. 

Now, on polling day 2021, the discussion resurfaced when all political parties suddenly recalled the matter as if they were still in campaign mode.

Related:

“Like Judas Betrayed Jesus Christ”: PM attacks Pinarayi Vijayan Government 
Harassment of nuns in train at Jhansi  can become a major poll issue in Kerala 
Kerala: Left leader E A Sankaran returns to Congress, while Church leaders meet RSS

The post Kerala: Sabarimala issue re enters the spotlight even on poll day appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Politicians in poll-bound Kerala are hard at work making their presence felt, being in the public eye is a part of political investments as the election months close in. They are also busy curating their political networks, and strengthening social alliances that they hope will ensure rich dividends come election time. Lines are also blurring between the church and state, quite literally as was reported recently by the Indian Express on how the influential Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church on Thursday “urged its followers to vote for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader R Balashankar”, whose “intervention saved a 1,000-year-old church in Kerala’s Alappuzha district from demolition to widen a national highway.”

According to the IE the church is, “acknowledging the timely intervention of Balashankar, co-convener, BJP national training programme, in preventing the demolition of St George Orthodox Church at Cheppad”. Hence the spokesperson for the Orthodox Church, Fr Johns Abraham Konat, has said that the Church head Baselios Marthoma Paulose II wanted the faithful to keep away partisan political interests to vote for Balashankar. Fr Konat reportedly has said, “If Balashankar is not voted to victory, it would be ungratefulness. The Prime Minister had intervened in the issue of the Cheppad church, which was subsequently handed over to the Archaeology department and thus froze the decision to demolish the church. It was Balashankar who gave courageous leadership in this effort to protect the historical church.” He added that, “He [Balashankar] is the BJP candidate in Chengannur, where Orthodox Church is an influential force. When the LDF and UDF fronts kept away from the issue without rendering any help to protect the church, it was Balashankar who, like a Church member, intervened.” According to the news report, Balashankar is likely to contest from Chengannur assembly seat, which is currently held by CPI (M) legislator Saji Cheriyan.

The Church, at Cheppad, is believed to have been built in 1050 AD, and has priceless murals, and is the burial place of the revered 19th century Malankara Metropolitan Philipose Mar Dionysius. However it was reportedly facing “demolition” according to the widening alignment decided by the National Highway Authority of India. According to the IE orders had been issued in this regard, and the Church had raised the matter seeking the intervention across political lines to save it from demolition. However, it was BJP’s Balashankar, who eventually raised the issue to with Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari. Subsequently, reported IE, the officials of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) inspected the church, and declared it to be “one of the rarest in Kerala, with beautiful mural paintings on the walls of the altar,” and due to its historical, art and architectural importance the church,  ASI felt should be a protected monument of national importance. Hence the ‘blessings’ as it were are now being showered in thanksgiving on the BJP politician.  

In direct contrast is an example of the ‘Left’ side of the political divide in the state known as God’s own country. A group of eminent Muslim citizens have written to the CPI (M) General Secretary, Sitaram Yechuri, their concerns about what they term as “Kerala CPM’s unhealthy and negative Communal shift”. The group has raised questions and alleged that there has been a “the shocking shift” in that the “CPI(M) has taken in Kerala” recently, apparently to gain “electoral dividends”. The letter alleges that Vijayaraghavan, the party’s acting secretary in the state, has been consistently making “Islamophobic statements vitiating the social environment of Kerala”. Another allegation is about tags like ‘terrorists’ being heaped on ’ those who oppose environmentally questionable projects.

Responding to these allegations Communist Party of India- Marxist (CPI-M) Politburo member Brinda Karat told SabrangIndia that none of the “signatories have anything to do with the CPIM”. According to Karat, one of the signatories of this letter has “in an earlier FB post made a scurrilous allegation that Prakash Karat senior Polit Bureau member is about to join the BJP! Such absurdities certainly raise questions about the credibility of and motives behind the letter sent on the eve of the elections.” The letter has been signed by a group of scientists, lawyers, writers, filmmakers, professors and has made strong allegations against Vijayaraghavan. The letter writers say they are concerned about what they call a “possible destruction of the social fabric of Kerala,” and  the “new social engineering the CPIM is doing in Kerala.”

Brinda Karat has said that the the signatories have not answered “the crux of the issue: did the Muslim League and the UDF ally with some Muslim extremist groups in the local body elections? Yes they did and that is the criticism of the CPI (M) against the Muslim League and the UDF. It is totally wrong to equate criticism of such an opportunist alliance with extremist elements with the CPIM’s approach to minority rights”. She says that “on such grounds to term the CPI (M) as Islamophobic is nothing but a politically motivated charge.” According to Karat the party’s acting Secretary Vijay Raghavan has clarified repeatedly that “majoritarian communalism represented by the BJP, the RSS and the sangh parivar are the greatest danger. However in this fight we can never compromise with any extremist or communal elements and groups working in the name of minority communities.Those who do so will be exposed before the people.”

Karat added that “it is an insult to the hundreds of CPI(M) workers martyred by the RSS to suggest the Party has in any way diluted its fight against the BJP. This is a canard being spread on the eve of the elections to discredit the LDF. This is all the more so since as people of Kerala know the BJP and the UDF are working in tandem to discredit the LDF including on the use of central agencies targeting the Chief Minister. It is because the minorities of Kerala are appreciating the stand of CPI (M) in defence of secular values, that such charges are being made which have no substance.”

However, Pareethu Bava Khan, who is one of the signatories, told SabrangIndia that the group is awaiting an official reply to the letter and will only decide what to do next after that. 

Related:

Why is Kerala concerned about the Centre’s ESZ notification?
Two former Kerala HC judges join BJP
RSS worker killed in clash with SDPI members in Kerala’s Alappuzha
Kerala Government to drop Sabarimala, anti CAA protest cases

The post Kerala’s political climate is hotting up as election season approaches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 11, the Minister of Law and Justice Ravi Shankar Prasad informed the Rajya Sabha that Dalits who convert to Islam and Christianity will not be eligible to contest assembly or parliamentary elections from Scheduled Caste reserved constituencies, reported The Times of India.

Dalits taking to the above-mentioned faiths also cannot claim other reservation benefits. But according to a TOI report, the Law Minister clarified that those adopting Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist faith could contest from Scheduled Caste reserved seats and will be receiving other reservation benefits.

To the question asked by BJP leader GVL Narasimha Rao in Rajya Sabha, the minister said, “Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order outlines that…no person who professes a religion different from Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste”.

Further, the Union Minister also informed that at present, there is no proposal to bring in any amendment in the Representation of the People’s Act to disallow Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe converting to Islam and Christianity from contesting elections.

The Hindu also quoted Ravi Shankar Prasad saying that there were multiple judgments in place on quota to Dalit Muslims and that the Supreme Court had said that, “till the time you agree that you don’t face the same discrimination then benefits cannot be granted to you”.

This stance of the present government worsens the conditions of those Dalits who have converted to Islam or Christianity, the subject of a decades long Constitutional challenge, still pending before the Supreme Court. The root of this injustice lies in a 1950 Presidential (Scheduled Castes) Order, that specifically excludes Dalit Christians and Muslims from any schemes, affirmative action’s etc. that are allowed to others.

Related:

Oratory comes with conviction
Christian groups demand justice for Dalit minorities
60 Years Of Constitutional Rights Denied To 20 Millions Indian Dalit Christians
Dalits, OBCs forced to bury their deceased by the roadside
Over 400 detainees released under Public Safety Act in J&K: MHA

The post No SC quota for Dalits converting to Islam & Christianity to contest elections: Centre to RS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Lebanese response, accompanied by jubilation throughout Lebanon, shows that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have overplayed his cards. However, for Netanyahu it was a worthy gamble, as the Israeli leader is desperate for any new political capital that could shield him against increasingly emboldened contenders in the country’s September 17 general elections.

A fundamental question that could influence any analysis of the decision to strike Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza is whether the strategy originated from the Israeli government or the limited personal calculations of Netanyahu himself. I contend that the latter is true.

Israel has already violated the sovereignty of all of these regions, bombing some of them hundreds of times in the past, but striking all at once is unprecedented. Since neither Israel, nor its US allies offered any convincing military logic behind the campaign, there can be no other conclusion that the objectives were entirely political.

One obvious sign that the attacks were meant to benefit Netanyahu, and Netanyahu only, is the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister violated an old Israeli protocol of staying mum following this type of cross-border violence. It is also uncommon for top Israeli officials to brag about their country’s intelligence outreach and military capabilities. Israel, for example, has bombed Syria hundreds of times in recent years, yet rarely taken responsibility for any of these attacks.

Compare this with Netanyahu’s remarks following the two-day strikes of August 24-25. Only minutes after the Israeli strikes, Netanyahu hailed the army’s “major operational effort”, declaring that “Iran has no immunity anywhere.”

Regarding the attack on the southeast region of Aqraba in Syria, Netanyahu went into detail, describing the nature of the target and the identities of the enemy as well.

Two of the Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria were identified by the Israeli army, which distributed their photographs while allegedly travelling on the Iranian airline, Mahan “which Israel and the United States have identified as a major transporter of weaponry and materiel to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon,” according to the Times of Israel.

Why would Israel go to this extent, which will surely help the targeted countries in uncovering some of Israel’s intelligence sources?

The Economist revealed that “some … in Israel’s security and political establishments are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu’s tireless extolling of “Israel’s intelligence-gathering and operational successes in surprising detail.”

The explanation lies in one single phrase: the September 17 elections.

In recent months, Netanyahu has finally managed to wrestle the title: the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister, a designation that the Israeli leader has earned, despite his checkered legacy dotted with abuse of power, self-serving agenda and several major corruption cases that rope in Netanyahu directly, along with his wife and closest aides.

Yet, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu can hang on for much longer. Following the April 9 elections, the embattled Israeli leader tried to form a government of like-minded right-wing politicians, but failed. It was this setback that pushed for the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset on May 29 and the call for a new election. While Israeli politics is typically turbulent, holding two general elections within such a short period of time is very rare, and, among other things, it demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.

Equally important is that, for the first time in years, Netanyahu and his Likud party are facing real competition. These rivals, led by Benjamin Gantz of the Blue and White (Kahol Lavan) centrist party are keen on denying Netanyahu’s every possible constituency, including his own pro-illegal settlements and pro-war supporters.

Statements made by Gantz in recent months are hardly consistent with the presumed ideological discourse of the political center, anywhere. The former Chief of General Staff of the Israeli army is a strong supporter of illegal Jewish settlements and an avid promoter of war on Gaza. Last June, Gantz went as far as accusing Netanyahu of “diminishing Israel’s deterrence” policy in Gaza, which “is being interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness.”

In fact, the terms “weak” or “weakness” have been ascribed repeatedly to Netanyahu by his political rivals, including top officials within his own right-wing camp. The man who has staked his reputation on tough personal or unhindered violence in the name of Israeli security is now struggling to protect his image.

This analysis does not in any way discount the regional and international objectives of Netanyahu’s calculations, leading amongst them his desire to stifle any political dialogue between Tehran and Washington, an idea that began taking shape at the G7 summit in Biarritz, France. But even that is insufficient to offer a rounded understanding of Netanyahu’s motives, especially because the Israeli leader is wholly focused on his own survival, as opposed to future regional scenarios.

However, the “Mr. Security” credentials that Netanyahu aimed to achieve by bombing multiple targets in four countries might not yield the desired dividends. Israeli media is conveying a sense of panic among Israelis, especially those living in the northern parts of the country and in illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Golan Heights.

This is hardly the strong and mighty image that Netanyahu was hoping to convey through his military gamble. None of the thousands of Israelis who are currently being trained on surviving Lebanese retaliations are particularity reassured regarding the power of their country.

Netanyahu is, of course, not the first Israeli leader to use the military to achieve domestic political ends. Late Israeli leader, Shimon Peres, has done so in 1996 but failed miserably, but only after killing over 100 Lebanese and United Nations peacekeepers in the Southern Lebanese village of Qana.

The consequences of Netanyahu’s gamble might come at a worse price for him than simply losing the elections. Opening a multi-front war is a conflict that Israel cannot win, at least, not any more.

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His last book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is ‘These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons’ (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post The War Ahead: Netanyahu’s Elections Gamble Will be Costly for Israel appeared first on SabrangIndia.