NEW DELHI, Aug 17: Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar on Sunday issued a strong point-by-point rebuttal to a series of allegations made by the Congress party and its leader Rahul Gandhi.
These accusations centered around claims of “vote chori” (vote theft), fake entries in electoral rolls, manipulation during elections in states like Maharashtra and Karnataka, the mysterious removal of 22 lakh voters in Bihar, and the Election Commission’s refusal to provide machine-readable voter lists.
Responding to Rahul Gandhi’s claim that numerous voters in Bangalore Central were registered with “house number 0,” the CEC explained that this was neither unusual nor fraudulent. In many unauthorized colonies and urban slums, house numbers have not been officially assigned by municipal authorities. As per EC norms, voters in such areas are given notional numbers, which often appear as “0” in the system. Additionally, many homeless voters are legally entitled to vote and are also registered with a “0” address. Calling such entries fake, Kumar said, was a disservice to marginalized communities and undermined democratic principles. He emphasized that the Election Commission stands by every legitimate voter, regardless of their housing status.
The Congress party had also alleged electoral fraud in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, citing a sudden increase of 1 crore voters between the May Lok Sabha elections and the November state polls, along with unusually high voter turnout after 5 p.m. Kumar refuted these claims, saying that the voter lists had been available for public scrutiny well in advance. He criticized political parties for remaining silent during the verification process and raising objections only after losing. He also pointed out that voter turnout in the final hour of polling was below 10%, which falls within expected norms. Eight months after the election, he noted, no legal challenge has been filed in the Supreme Court, questioning the motive behind raising such allegations now.
Rahul Gandhi had further alleged that around 1 lakh votes were rigged in the Bangalore Central constituency, helping the BJP win the seat. To this, Kumar explained that if someone who is not an elected representative of a region wishes to file a formal complaint, they are required to do so under oath before the Electoral Officer. This ensures the integrity of the process and discourages baseless public accusations.
On the issue of 22 lakh voters being removed from Bihar’s electoral roll, the Congress suggested that this represented suspicious or sudden “deaths.” Kumar clarified that these were not recent occurrences but rather outdated entries that had not been revised for nearly 20 years. The clean-up was part of a long-overdue update to ensure the accuracy of the rolls. He acknowledged that the system isn’t perfect and emphasized the crucial role played by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Booth Level Agents (BLAs), the latter nominated by political parties themselves, in maintaining updated voter data.
Kumar also addressed the charge that the EC was biased in not providing a machine-readable copy of the electoral roll. He explained that such data sharing was prohibited following a 2019 Supreme Court judgment due to privacy concerns. Machine-readable lists, which contain photos and personal data, could be tampered with or misused. He also pointed out instances where voter lists with photos were published in the media without consent, breaching privacy. However, he clarified that a searchable version of the voter list is available online, allowing individuals to verify their own records.
Finally, regarding the timing of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, Kumar said the process was conducted between June and July 2025 to clean up and verify voter records. He noted that a similar month-long revision was conducted in 2003 and emphasized that with over seven crore voters in Bihar, the process was robust and transparent.
CEC Kumar concluded by warning against politically motivated allegations that damage public trust in democratic institutions. He said that terms like “vote theft” insult the Constitution and the integrity of the electoral system. (IANS)
