Rahul Gandhi’s Allegations Against the Election Commission: Facts, Concerns, and Realities

In recent years, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly raised questions about the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging that the institution has failed to uphold its neutrality and has, in certain cases, allowed manipulation of voter lists. However, while these allegations have drawn wide attention, their credibility and substantiation remain points of debate.

From EVMs to Voter List Manipulation

For a long time, Rahul Gandhi’s criticism focused primarily on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Several opposition leaders, including Gandhi, alleged that EVMs could be tampered with to favor the ruling party. Yet, despite multiple petitions reaching the Supreme Court, no concrete evidence was ever produced to establish systematic rigging. Consequently, Gandhi shifted his criticism from EVMs to the Election Commission itself, now alleging manipulation of voter rolls through centralized systems.

At a press conference in Delhi, Gandhi highlighted irregularities in Karnataka’s Aland constituency. According to him, as many as 6,018 votes were deliberately removed from the rolls using a “centralized pool.” He cited an instance where the relative of a booth-level officer (BLO) found her vote deleted without due process. Gandhi claimed this was evidence of targeted voter suppression facilitated by the ECI.

The Known Facts

The issue at Aland was not entirely new. Records show that 68 applications for voter deletions had been filed in that constituency. Upon verification, only 24 were found genuine—relating to deceased individuals or voters who had shifted residence. The Election Commission itself filed a complaint, leading to a police probe that was later transferred to the Karnataka CID. The investigation remains ongoing.

What is undisputed is that an attempt to tamper with voter rolls did occur. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the attempt succeeded or that it involved the Election Commission directly. This distinction is crucial.

The Election Commission’s Position

Rahul Gandhi has accused the ECI of not cooperating with investigations, stating that even after 18 letters from the Karnataka CID, the Commission failed to respond. The ECI, however, maintains that it has provided all necessary information. Determining which side is accurate remains unresolved.

Moreover, the Commission has clarified that there is no “centralized software” that allows unilateral deletion of voters. The process requires multiple layers of verification:

• Form-7 Submission: Either physically or through the National Voters’ Service Portal (NVSP).

• Verification: Notices are issued to the concerned voter, followed by hearings.

• BLO Checks: Booth-level officers verify details at the ground level.

• Final Decision: Only after this multi-stage scrutiny can a voter’s name be deleted.

In short, unilateral deletion of voters without due process is technically not possible.

The Larger Context of Electoral Malpractices

Rahul Gandhi’s allegations do touch on a broader, uncomfortable truth: electoral malpractices are not new in India. From booth capturing in Bihar to mass bogus voting in Kerala’s “party villages,” voter fraud has historically existed, even before the EVM era. While technology has reduced some of these issues, attempts at manipulation—whether by ruling or opposition parties—continue in different forms.

For instance, in Kerala’s Attingal constituency during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, over 25,000 duplicate votes were identified and removed after legal challenges. Similar instances of inflated or manipulated rolls have been reported across multiple states. These malpractices, however, are usually linked to local political actors rather than the Election Commission itself.

A Political Gamble?

Rahul Gandhi’s persistence in highlighting these issues reflects his effort to position himself as a defender of democratic integrity. However, without concrete evidence to establish institutional complicity, such allegations risk weakening his own credibility. As analysts note, the danger for Gandhi lies in appearing as though he is discrediting the democratic process itself—a perception that could erode voter confidence in his leadership.

The debate surrounding voter roll manipulation underscores two realities. First, electoral fraud, in various forms, has long existed in India and requires constant vigilance. Second, the Election Commission, despite its imperfections, remains a layered system rather than a monolithic manipulator.

Rahul Gandhi’s concerns deserve attention, particularly regarding transparency and accountability in electoral processes. Yet, unless backed by verifiable evidence, broad allegations against the Election Commission may do more harm than good—both to public trust in democracy and to Gandhi’s own political credibility.