QUESTION : Last month, India’s political landscape was shaped by Rahul Gandhi’s allegations and the Election Commission’s response. This raises a pressing question: is our country experiencing a democratic backslide? – Biju Varghese
ANSWER: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST
Most of us are familiar with the allegations raised by Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in India, regarding “vote chori” (vote theft) and the subsequent response of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Before entering into that discussion, it is important to recall the research paper of Prof. Sabyasachi Das, Assistant Professor of Economics at Ashoka University, published in July 2023, titled “Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy.” The paper examines the phenomenon of democratic erosion—where a country gradually shifts from democratic to more autocratic forms of governance.
Prof. Das alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured several seats in the 2019 general elections through electoral manipulation. He highlighted irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly with reference to constituency-level Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) turnout data. Following its release, Ashoka University distanced itself from the study, stating that it had not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal and therefore lacked formal academic scrutiny. Nevertheless, the political sensitivity of the paper soon led to controversy. In line with the fate of many who publicly challenge the present central government, Prof. Das was eventually compelled to resign from his position at the university. Reflecting on this episode allows us to better understand the vulnerabilities and challenges facing Indian democracy today.
The Key Allegations of Rahul Gandhi
In a series of public statements, Rahul Gandhi has advanced serious allegations against the Election Commission of India (ECI), claiming that the institution has enabled large-scale manipulation of electoral rolls across multiple states. His critique situates these practices within a broader narrative of democratic erosion, where institutional safeguards are weakened and electoral processes are compromised in ways that favour the ruling party.
In Karnataka, Gandhi drew particular attention to the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency in Bangalore. He alleged that the voter rolls for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections contained extensive irregularities, including duplicate entries, invalid or unverifiable addresses, bulk registrations listing multiple individuals at the same location, and widespread misuse of Form 6 for new voter registrations. According to his estimates, more than 100,000 entries were fraudulent in Mahadevapura alone, a number roughly equivalent to the BJP’s winning margin in that constituency. These claims, if substantiated, suggest that the margin of victory in a key parliamentary constituency may have been artificially shaped by electoral malpractice.
On the one hand, voter participation rates remain robust, reflecting the continuing faith of citizens in electoral politics. On the other hand, if the procedures that govern elections—such as the maintenance of rolls, the integrity of voting technologies, and the transparency of institutional practices—are compromised, then electoral participation risks becoming a façade that masks deeper authoritarian tendencies.
A second instance was drawn from the Maharashtra Assembly elections, held just four months after the parliamentary polls. Gandhi alleged that the electoral rolls in the state had been inflated by the sudden addition of nearly one crore voters—an expansion that, he argued, defied normal demographic patterns. His repeated demand that the ECI provide an electronic version of the rolls for independent verification was consistently denied, reinforcing his claim that institutional opacity now characterises the Commission’s functioning.
The third set of allegations pertained to Bihar, where Gandhi criticised the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He contended that the process was misused to delete as many as 6.5 million voters, disproportionately affecting opposition strongholds. He described the SIR as a modern form of “vote theft,” casting it as a new mechanism of disenfranchisement. Independent media outlets, including The Wire, reported irregularities in draft rolls, such as the continued presence of deceased voters. Although the matter is now before the judiciary, the allegations highlight the potential misuse of ostensibly neutral bureaucratic processes for partisan gain.
These allegations underscore a key paradox in contemporary Indian democracy. On the one hand, voter participation rates remain robust, reflecting the continuing faith of citizens in electoral politics. On the other hand, if the procedures that govern elections—such as the maintenance of rolls, the integrity of voting technologies, and the transparency of institutional practices—are compromised, then electoral participation risks becoming a façade that masks deeper authoritarian tendencies. Gandhi’s critique raises urgent questions about whether India’s democratic institutions are being hollowed out from within, in line with global patterns of “stealth authoritarianism.”
Response of the Election Commission of India
In its official communication on 11 August 2025, the ECI described as “factually incorrect” the allegations of “vote theft” raised by the Congress Party and its leader, Rahul Gandhi. Subsequently, on 17 August, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, in a press conference, categorically dismissed the accusations as “baseless.” According to him, the allegations were misleading, and the language used by Gandhi constituted an “insult to the Constitution.” Kumar reiterated that the Commission operates independently of any political party and underscored its constitutional responsibility to safeguard electoral integrity.
Responding to specific charges, the CEC clarified several points of contention. First, he explained that the presence of “house number 0” in voter rolls was not evidence of fraud but a placeholder system used for addresses without designated numbers. Similarly, the appearance of a voter’s name in multiple rolls did not automatically imply electoral malpractice, as casting multiple votes is illegal and punishable under law.
On the issue of the SIR in Bihar, Kumar stated that the process was designed as a routine “cleaning” exercise of the electoral rolls. He clarified that the 2.2 million deaths recorded during the SIR represented the correction of historical unreported data, rather than the mass deletion of valid voters as alleged by Gandhi.
At stake in these debates is not merely a set of administrative disputes, but the very integrity of India’s democratic promise. The Constitution adopted 75 years ago vested every citizen with the right to vote—an act that made all individuals equal regardless of caste, class, gender, religion, or region. The power of the vote allows every citizen in the country to hold governments accountable. Any breach of this right, whether through procedural manipulation or institutional capture, represents not simply an administrative lapse but a profound deception of the democratic system itself. Ensuring the integrity and fairness of elections, therefore, is not a matter of bureaucratic procedure alone but of safeguarding the moral foundation of representative democracy in India.
Another point of contention was the demand for a machine-readable version of the electoral rolls. The CEC highlighted that, in line with a 2019 Supreme Court directive, the voters’ list is not designed to be machine-readable to protect the privacy of citizens. According to Kumar, this policy represents a necessary balance between transparency and the constitutional right to privacy. He reminded political parties that they already have opportunities to scrutinize and challenge the rolls at multiple stages, including before and after the publication of draft lists, and during pre-election consultations with the ECI.
The CEC also addressed the opposition’s demand for CCTV footage from polling stations to verify instances of duplicate or proxy voting. He warned that releasing such footage could compromise the privacy of individual voters, questioning whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to disclose videos of private citizens—including women in sensitive contexts—for partisan scrutiny. In his view, such proposals not only risked violating individual rights but also undermined public confidence in electoral confidentiality.
Finally, Kumar condemned the repeated use of the term ‘vote chori’, arguing that it constituted an “unsuccessful effort to mislead voters” and amounted to a direct affront to the Constitution. In framing his response in both legal and moral terms, the CEC sought to reaffirm the credibility of the ECI while portraying Gandhi’s allegations as politically motivated and institutionally damaging.
Integrity, Fairness and Transparency in Elections
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has historically been regarded as one of the most powerful institutions entrusted with safeguarding the democratic process. Its constitutional mandate grants it autonomy and positions it as an impartial arbiter of elections, responsible not only for procedural legality but also for sustaining public trust in the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. The legacy of T. N. Seshan, who as CEC (1990–1996) transformed the culture of electoral politics, remains a benchmark of institutional integrity and effectiveness. At its core, the Commission’s duty is to conduct free and fair elections and thereby ensure that the government reflects the will of the people.
In response to Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of large-scale electoral malpractice, however, the ECI’s explanations appear more defensive than convincing. CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s clarifications regarding anomalies—such as the use of “house number 0” as a placeholder, duplicate entries across rolls, and bulk reporting of deaths—were framed as matters of administrative practice. By referencing the 2019 Supreme Court directive on machine-readable electoral rolls and pointing to established precedents for the SIR of rolls, the Commission sought to ground its legitimacy in continuity and rule-based procedures. It is true that irregularities and complaints have been recorded in past elections as well; yet in those instances the ECI demonstrated responsiveness through remedial measures such as repolls, thereby reinforcing its credibility as a corrective authority.
Nevertheless, several serious issues raised by Gandhi remain insufficiently addressed. The Commission’s argument that duplicate names do not necessarily translate into duplicate votes is formally correct but fails to engage with the broader concern of roll inflation and constituency-specific anomalies. Questions surrounding the sudden surge in voter turnout during the final hours of polling also remain unanswered. While the ECI has embraced technological reforms through the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs), its reluctance to release electronic data for independent verification undermines claims of transparency. The CEC’s rhetorical appeal to familial imagery—questioning whether CCTV footage of “mothers or daughters-in-law” should be released—appears simplistic and evasive, diverting attention from the substantive issue of verifiability. Furthermore, framing Gandhi’s criticism as an “insult to the Constitution” and demanding an affidavit within a week, while not extending similar demands to ruling party leaders, gives the impression of partisanship rather than neutrality.
Concerns over the impartiality of the Commission are reinforced by empirical evidence. According to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), public trust in the ECI has declined significantly: while in 2019 approximately half of respondents expressed confidence in the institution, by 2024 that figure had fallen to around one quarter. Institutional changes in the appointment procedure of Election Commissioners have further deepened scepticism. In March 2023, a Constitution Bench led by Justice K. M. Joseph ruled that the appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners should be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. Yet, in December 2023, the government enacted legislation that excluded the Chief Justice from the process, replacing the judiciary’s presence with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This shift has been widely criticised for weakening the checks and balances necessary to preserve the independence of the Commission, leaving appointments more susceptible to executive influence.
At stake in these debates is not merely a set of administrative disputes, but the very integrity of India’s democratic promise. The Constitution adopted 75 years ago vested every citizen with the right to vote—an act that made all individuals equal regardless of caste, class, gender, religion, or region. The power of the vote allows every citizen in the country to hold governments accountable. Any breach of this right, whether through procedural manipulation or institutional capture, represents not simply an administrative lapse but a profound deception of the democratic system itself. Ensuring the integrity and fairness of elections, therefore, is not a matter of bureaucratic procedure alone but of safeguarding the moral foundation of representative democracy in India.
