Restrictions on independent audit, data access in forms that are resistant to analysis, and a reflexive appeal to "feasibility" have cumulatively eroded confidence in the electoral process.
In the age of news and information overload and a flurry of critical events-developments affecting international politics in an increasingly upended world order, domestic affairs and politics may occupy little space perhaps in the minds of the average Indian reader.
The recent charges of Vote Chori levied against the Election Commission (EC) by the political opposition questions the very integrity of India’s electoral and democratic process.
Amongst the facts brought forth by the opposition, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of facilitating “criminal fraud” in Mahadevapura, Bangalore Central. He claimed that more than one lakh fictitious entries had been lodged to swing the 2024 general election in the BJP’s direction.
Gandhi’s presentation of the Vote Chori allegation cited several disturbing anomalies like multiple enrolments for the same person, identical EPIC numbers for the same voter found in different states, addresses linked with improbably large voter groups, and booth records indicating multiple votes cast by one voter.
What’s suspicious here is the arithmetic number, as from 2023 to 2024, the BJP lead in Mahadevapura rose from around 44,501 to over 1,14,000 votes, as voter registration and turnout rose modestly. Gandhi charges similar patterns in other marginally won seats by the BJP across polls.
For some, while these statistical oddities may not constitute a smoking gun, they do create a fertile ground for enough suspicion to be raised in the propriety-conduct of the EC and its established electoral process. Impartiality in conduct and the transparent, ethical separation of power demands greater accountability from the Election Commission, which has so far failed to give a satisfactory response to the allegations made so far by the opposition.
All of this is not just concerned with the accusation levied on the EC in playing a part to favour the BJP or supporting to steal an election in a set of constituencies across different polls, but its actions may corrode public trust in the electoral process regardless of what’s proven and not proven.
ECI has so far simply dismissed the allegations, requesting affidavits and blaming political parties for failure to raise objections in a timely manner. A few claims which are representative of such issues are roll-based on self-declaration, voter lists distributed in the form of unsearchable image PDFs that exclude independent audits, and a lenient verification process.
This is only part of a broader trend of intermittent campaign finance data monitoring, imperfect VVPAT verification, no thorough EVM security audits, reluctance to save booth CCTV footage, and delay in publishing final turnout tallies.
To restore credibility and electoral integrity in the world’s largest functioning democracy, one may require a solid institutional foundation to ensure independent examination of voter rolls, releasing structured machine-readable data, augmenting EVM security screening, enforcing electoral law more forcefully, and broadening political consultations.
The role of the Supreme Court will be crucial in this regard which has already suggested involvement of the Chief Justice of India in the selection/nomination of Election Commissioners as being imperative in restoring (lost) confidence in EC’s abilities to independently discharge its function.
Can the SC do more?
The courts, during the last decade, have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to respect the ECI’s discretion even where more vigilance was required.
In Hans Raj Jain v. ECI (Delhi High Court, 2020), allegations of unprecedented disparities between EVM counts and VVPAT slips of the 2019 general election were brought to an end with the court only directing the Commission to “consider” the complaint effectively, leaving the matter to the ECI’s discretion again.
There was no public audit that followed. Similarly, the restoration petitions for paper ballots like Nyaya Bhoomi v. ECI (2018) and C.R. Jaya Sukin v. ECI (2021–2022) were dismissed without substantial discussion.
In N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court allowed VVPAT verification for a mere five machines per assembly segment – less than 2% of the total on the basis of “administrative feasibility.”
When Reshma Vithalbhai Patel v. Union of India compelled full VVPAT coverage, the shift did not go so far as to enhance verification samples. In Kamal Nath v. ECI (2018/2019), the Court agreed with the Commission’s denial of searchable electoral rolls based on privacy even when the ECI itself admitted duplicate and fake entries thereby limiting independent audits.
A puzzling arithmetic
The 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections revealed stark procedural and numerical disparities.
Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer cited technical and procedural reasons for postal ballot mishandling and the clearance of mock test data, while vital booth-level Form 17C records remained withheld. The official argument that the relatively small number of formal complaints indicated smooth running was refuted by stark irregularities.
An early investigation alleged over five lakh additional votes 6.40 crore from EVMs and 5.38 lakh postal ballots, less than the declared overall of 6.45 crore. The ECI later said postal ballots were not included in the first public count of the turnout; including them put the count at 6.46 crore, still short of an unexplained undercount of around 33,912 votes.
Technical failures also undermined the process with uncounted test poll data, malfunctioning control unit displays, and physical-digital mismatches. The ECI had issued a circular in July 2023 allowing VVPAT counts to be excluded if mismatches were less than the winning margin, enabling actual votes to be disregarded without detection.
This administrative shortcut, while seemingly pragmatic, undermines the VVPAT system’s core purpose as an independent verification tool.
It effectively allows electoral errors or minor manipulations to be absorbed into the margin of victory, normalising discrepancies that should instead trigger rigorous investigation and building a system where small-scale fraud can be rendered invisible. In some cases, Election Duty Certificate ballot papers were simply excluded from counts.
Voter registration also increased at an exceptionally rapid pace. Maharashtra’s voter list increased by 4.1 million from May to November 2024. Registered voters (97 million) were already more than the estimated adult population (95.4 million) by November.
In Maval, 2,012 fewer votes were polled than were counted; in Loha, the reverse happened where 154 more votes were polled than votes counted. In Kamthi, the BJP vote share in state elections improved by 56,000 from the general election a few months prior with no noticeable campaign boost.
The biggest discrepancy was the overnight turnout surge 58.22% at 5 p.m. to 66.05% the next day, a staggering 76 lakhs extra votes packed into 12,000 booths in 85 constituencies where the BJP had hitherto underachieved. The BJP-led NDA next won 132 out of 149 seats, an astronomical 89% strike rate.
Are we seeing a silent purge?
August 2025 saw Bihar record its highest ever voter roll depletion in the form of removal of roughly 65 lakh names, about 8-10% of the voting population, lost in the SIR process. 22 lakh were deceased, 7 lakh were duplicates, 36 lakh were shifted or “untraceable,” and 1.2 lakh were awaiting verification.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) questioned the scope and secrecy of the operation, pointing out that preliminary drafts of the rolls allegedly handed over to some political parties had a “reason for deletion” column missing in the version available to the public.
The Supreme Court has now directed the ECI to verify whether such lists were distributed and to name recipients. This lack of transparency is noteworthy when compared to practices in other large democracies.
In United States, for example, voter roll purges are governed by federal laws that mandate public notice and allow for legal challenges, creating a more contestable process. India’s more opaque approach leaves such a massive disenfranchisement exercise vulnerable to claims of partisan targeting.
Women were and are disproportionately affected with 31 lakh deletions compared to 25 lakh for men, with the female deletion rate higher in 37 out of 38 districts. In Gopalganj, the number of female voters declined by 17.8% compared to 11% for men a gap which cannot be explained by patterns of migration or mortality.
The gender-literacy gap probably contributed to the difficulties caused by self-enumeration conditions. Petitioners also mentioned absurd examples of forms being submitted in the names of the dead and duplicate entries with the same “notional” addresses which the ECI justified as a protective measure against exclusion.
A system under strain
From Mahadevapura’s so-called fake rolls to Maharashtra’s numerical puzzles and Bihar’s enigmatic deletions, the common thread is that the ECI has chosen procedural control and institutional defensiveness over transparency.
Restrictions on independent audit, data access in forms that are resistant to analysis, and a reflexive appeal to “feasibility” have cumulatively eroded confidence in the electoral process.
Rahul Gandhi’s accusations perhaps do not, by themselves, amount to proof of a conspiratorial plot. But the confirmed anomalies, loopholes in procedure, and judicial discretion point to something no less disquieting – quantifiable vulnerabilities in the Indian democratic apparatus that, unless plugged, would cast a long shadow over the legitimacy of its results-and more importantly question the impartiality of India’s democratic process which is based on the foundations of safeguarding electoral integrity.