Rocked by sweeping allegations of voter roll manipulations and voter fraud by the Opposition parties, India’s electoral democracy is facing one of its toughest tests in recent times. With Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition parties placing the slogan ‘vote theft’ at the centre of their political campaign ahead of the Bihar assembly election, questions have intensified over the fairness of the electoral process and the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) role in ensuring free and fair elections.
Though the poll body has been in the eye of a storm since the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the recent allegations levelled by Rahul Gandhi accusing the Election Commission of enabling ‘vote theft’ by mass voter deletions in Karnataka and bogus additions in Maharashtra, have unleashed a fresh wave of controversy.
The Election Commission has dismissed the allegations as baseless, demanding proof on an affidavit, while the ruling BJP terms them a desperate attempt to challenge the mandate. The row has further escalated into a test of credibility, with some of the former Election Commissioners divided in their opinions.
Deletion of votes in Karnataka’s Aland
In his latest exposé on alleged ‘vote theft’, Rahul claimed to have found evidence in black-and-white of 6,018 voter deletion requests submitted in Karnataka’s Aland constituency through a centralised, software-driven operation using fake logins and phones registered outside Karnataka.
Rahul alleged that booth level officers (BLOs) in Aland reportedly found names of voters deleted without their knowledge, with applications filed using neighbours’ phone numbers, though they denied involvement. The pattern, he said, altered election results in multiple constituencies, pointing to systematic attacks on opposition voters, particularly from Dalit, OBC, Adivasi and minority communities.
According to Rahul, the Karnataka Criminal Investigation Department (CID) wrote 18 letters to the Election Commission asking for IP logs, phone records, and authentication data that could prove where the requests originated. However, the Commission has failed to provide the required data, he says. Rahul went on to allege that ECI Gyanesh Kumar was directly complicit in the vote deletion as he refused to provide crucial data and take any action despite repeated requests from the Karnataka CID.
The ECI, meanwhile, rebuffed the claims by saying that no online request can directly delete a voter. Every deletion must be verified in the field and requires a hearing. The poll body said that in Aland, fraudulent applications were filed, but they were detected and blocked. An FIR was registered against the culprits. The Commission said the system worked without any glitches and bogus requests were filtered out.
While the EC maintains that only genuine deletions were processed, political analyst Yogendra Yadav contests the claim. He says that the EC is being clever by half. “The actual charge by Rahul Gandhi is that a fraudulent attempt was made to initiate the process of deletion of more than 6,000 votes. Accidentally, it was caught, and it was not caught by the ECI. It was caught by the Congress candidate and brought it to the attention of the local officials. The EC had to take action after verifying the claim,” Yadav told this paper.
The EC, in its statement, said that though 6,018 applications in Form 7 for deletion were submitted online, only 24 applications were found to be genuine on verification; 5,994 others were incorrect. Accordingly, the 5,994 incorrect applications were rejected.
“One cannot get a vote deleted online. You can only file an objection, which initiates the process of deletion online. An objection by itself does not complete the process of deletion. That's basic,” the EC added.
The EC has to come clean on the question of whether the system is vulnerable to manipulation from outside so that 6,000 applications can be lodged using false names and phone numbers, Yadav said. “The EC must also clarify whether the system flagged the attempt on its own or if it was brought to notice by a candidate. If it is the latter, why is the Commission taking credit for filing the FIR?” Yadav asked.
The second charge raised by Rahul is that the EC is not cooperating in finding out the exact whereabouts and precise location of the persons who were involved in the fraud, he said. Yadav also questioned the EC’s stance, pointing to contradictions in its response.
“On the one hand, the EC claims it is impossible to delete votes online, and on the other, it says it has filed an FIR. The simple question is: why lodge an FIR if nothing wrong could be done? And if you have filed one, why not cooperate with the probe?” Yadav asked.
On Rahul’s allegation of the EC’s complicity, the poll body said the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka handed over all available information to the Karnataka police on September 6, 2023, for completing the investigation. The shared information included objector details such as form reference number, name of the objector, EPIC number, mobile number used for login, mobile number provided for processing, software application medium, IP address, and applicant place, among others.
However, Yadav says the details were inadequate. “They gave names of the objectors, phone number from which the complaint was made, and the Epic card, etc, all of which proved to be false. The IP address turned out to be dynamic. The CID needs the destination IP, OTP trail, and the device location for investigation, all of which the EC is withholding,” he said.
Understanding the electoral roll
The Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides the statutory basis for electoral rolls in India. Voter registration is conducted at the assembly constituencies, with the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in each state presiding over the process.
While the political row has led to a raging debate on the integrity of electoral rolls, experts point out that votes cannot be deleted by a mere click, applications for addition or deletion of names can be filed online through Form 6 and Form 7 on the EC’s portal or mobile app. While Form 6 is meant for new voter registration or change of constituency, Form 7 allows objections to inclusion or deletion of a name in cases of death, duplication or migration.
Speaking to this newspaper, former Chief Election Commissioner O P Rawat says that every application for deletion is verified by booth-level officers before approval. “After verification, the BLOs will put up the case to EC for approval. Only then does the deletion take place. There are no loopholes in the system,” said Rawat. “However, humans are vulnerable, and one cannot guarantee human character. Nothing is sacrosanct,” he adds.
Course correction by EC
In what appears to be a direct response to allegations of mass misuse of deletion forms, the poll body has introduced a new e-signature feature on its ECINet portal and app, days after the row broke out. The new feature was rolled out in the third week of September, according to people familiar with the development.
The new feature requires those wanting to register as voters or apply for deletion to verify their identity using their Aadhaar-linked phone numbers. Responding to the move, Rahul claimed that the ECI put a lock on "vote theft" only after he raised the matter, and asked the CEC when he would provide evidence to the Karnataka CID on the ‘deletion’ of votes in Aland.
The changes
In the new feature, applicants submitting Form 6, Form 7, or Form 8 (correction) must now verify their identity through a mobile number linked to their Aadhaar card. The earlier practice of using an EPIC number with any mobile number will no longer be accepted. Once the form is filled, users are redirected to an external e-sign portal managed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) under the Ministry of Electronics and IT. The applicants will have to enter their Aadhaar number and authenticate it with an OTP to complete the process.
Rahul’s atom bomb on Mahadevapura
Rahul’s first major salvo came with the ‘atom bomb’ claim of over one lakh “stolen votes” in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Through detailed data presentations, he explained how Congress-led investigations pointed towards a ‘theft’ of over one lakh votes in the Mahadevapura segment.
The data showed 11,965 duplicate voters, 40,009 voters with fake and invalid addresses, 10,452 bulk voters or single address voters, 4,132 voters with invalid photos, and 33,692 voters misusing Form 6 of new voters.The former Congress president also alleged that the Form 6 meant for new voters was the most misused one. “Normally, the new voters’ age should vary between 18 and 25 years, but in this category, there were voters with ages 98, 97, 85, 75 years and so on. “There is not a single person between the ages of 18 and 25 among these first-time voters,” Rahul alleged. The pattern was replicated on a huge scale across the country, he said. He also cited examples where a small house or room had 80 voters registered to it and addresses that were non-residential or improbable for the number of voters listed.
He also accused the EC of providing voter lists in paper-only, non-machine-readable format, making it very difficult to verify duplicate or fraudulent entries. He claimed that if electronic data had been provided, many anomalies could have been identified in seconds.
However, the EC refuted the charges, calling it ‘baseless and incorrect’, asking him to substantiate it with documentary evidence. The EC also asked Rahul to submit a declaration under oath under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Bogus vote addition in Maharashtra’s Rajura
In Maharashtra, Rahul highlighted the case of Rajura constituency in Chandrapur district, where more than 6,000 bogus voters were allegedly added to the rolls in the lead-up to the 2024 assembly elections to allegedly manipulate the results. According to him, more than 11,000 dubious registrations were made between October 1 and 15, many of them using non-existent or repeated addresses and fake identities. The Congress party has cited glaring anomalies in the voter rolls, with some entries listing a single word ‘Sasti’, as the address.
Following complaints, the local election office removed 6,861 entries, which the Congress says validate their allegations. However, the EC insists that due process was followed and fraudulent entries were rejected before polling.
Slip on ECI’s part, says former chief election commissioner
The Election Commission has gone wrong in handling the issue of 'vote theft' and its responses to allegations raised by Rahul and Opposition parties, says ex-CEC Rawat.
Rawat holds that the EC should have immediately taken up any credible claim, rather than simply dismissing or daring the complainant to back it up with affidavits. Rawat says that complaints like these are not new, and the previous commissions have taken immediate action on complaints from political parties and other stakeholders.
“Questioning any stakeholder has never been the forte of the EC. Whenever any political parties raise doubts, the Commission would always take it up and immediately investigate the matter jointly with the party representatives and submit the findings in the public domain,” he said, adding that the Commission has followed the tradition since the first CEC Sukumar Sen’s tenure. “However, it is the tradition that was broken for the first time now,” he says.
Responding to Rahul, CEC Gyanesh Kumar issued an ultimatum that he either submit an affidavit providing evidence or apologise. “There is no third option,” he had said.
When the Opposition parties raised such grave allegations on deletion and addition of votes, the EC should have immediately constituted a team and gotten the representative of the complainant on the team,” said Rawat. “By putting all the facts in the public domain, one can re-establish the credibility of the ECI,” he said.
In a media interview, S Y Quraishi, who served as Chief Election Commissioner from 2010 to 2012, was also critical of the Commission’s approach. “When the Leader of the Opposition makes such serious allegations, the EC should have ordered a probe instead of shouting at him,” Quraishi said. He described the Commission’s language as “objectionable and offensive” and warned that its credibility depends on open-minded investigation, not confrontation.
There are differing voices, too. N Gopalaswami, CEC between 2006 and 2009, defended the EC’s approach. In a media interview, he said the Aland case shows that EC has followed due process, and thousands of fake applications were blocked. Gopalaswami also expressed doubts over the screenshots and OTP flows that Rahul displayed, contending that the voter deletion process does not rely solely on OTPs.
Trust deficit
While Rahul’s allegations have reignited the debate on the credibility of the Election Commission, former CECs and observers point out that the Commission will have to restore public trust through greater transparency and robust verification systems.
Many surveys show that the EC is facing a test of credibility like never before. Yogendra Yadav says, “The public will lose trust in the EC when it declines to conduct a probe on allegations against them. Instead, it launches a counterattack on the people who raise questions. The EC has to dispel doubts about election integrity,” he said, pointing out that several surveys have shown that ordinary people are fast losing trust in the commission. Experts also note that the EC must adhere to its mandate of conducting free and fair elections.
“It is unfortunate if the public is losing faith in the commission because you should always maintain trust of the people. The EC cannot take sides; it must act as an impartial, objective referee to all stakeholders,” asserts Rawat.
Battle cry of ‘vote chori’
With vote theft becoming a rallying cry for Congress, the controversy is bound to resonate in the upcoming assembly elections and beyond. While Rahul has repeatedly promised even more explosive revelations about election rigging, the ruling BJP terms it a ‘damp squib’, accusing him of undermining democratic institutions to cover up his party’s weaknesses.
Speaking to this paper, Congress MP Manickam Tagore said the party will amplify the issue through sustained campaigns and urge citizens to join the effort to defend free and fair elections. “The issue has reached people after Rahul Gandhi’s expose on massive irregularities in the voter rolls. Now, we will seek the support of the people in defending free and fair elections. Though we sought remedial measures from the EC, it has failed to respond effectively. Our party has launched a nationwide signature campaign on vote theft. We are planning state rallies and conventions,” said Tagore.
FORM 6
New voter registration
* Furnish full name in both official language of the state and English. If filled in only one language, system will transliterate automatically into other language, which could lead to spelling errors
* Aadhaar number for authentication of entries. If the applicant does not have Aadhaar, it should be mentioned
* Specify date of birth with a self-attested copy of one of the documents mentioned in the form as age proof. For example, J&K’s Form 6 seeks either of the following: Birth certificate issued by Competent Local Body/Municipal Authority/Registrar of Births & Deaths; Aadhaar Card; PAN Card; Driving License; Certificates of Class X or Class XII issued by CBSE/ICSE/ State Education Boards, if it contains Date of Birth; Indian Passport
* If none of the documents is available, furnish some other document in support of age proof. Mention name of that document. You will also need to appear before Electoral Registration Officer or any other officer designated by him for verification
* Complete postal address with PIN code along with a self-attested copy of any of the documents in the name of applicant/parents/spouse as proof of ordinary residence
FORM 7
Deletion
* The application can be made by an elector registered in the existing electoral roll of the constituency
* The application can be an objection in respect of a registered elector/ an objection to the proposed inclusion of an entry in the electoral roll of the constituency, in which the applicant himself is registered OR a request for deletion of the applicant's own name from electoral roll
* Specify your name, EPIC number and mobile number of self ‘or’ relative (father/mother/husband/legal guardian)
* Specify reason as to why the person against whom the objection has been made, is not qualified for inclusion in the electoral roll viz. due to death, under age, absent/permanently shifted, already enrolled in the electoral roll at the same place or some other place, not an Indian citizen etc
* Specify full data on the person objected to or whose removal is sought
* The onus of proof to substantiate the reason for objection or removal of name lies with the applicant
* Any false statement made in the declaration is a punishable with imprisonment up to one year or with fine or with both