Two major press conferences held in recent weeks have attracted a good deal of national attention. The first was held by the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, on August 7, 2025, in New Delhi, where he highlighted specific instances of manipulation of the voter list in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of the Bangalore central parliamentary constituency during the 2024 general election. His disclosures included the fact that a large number of voters were enrolled in the voters list having the same address. In some cases, the ‘father’s name’ was given as ‘xyz’ and the house number as ‘0’. According to Mr. Gandhi, these facts were unearthed by his team after painstaking research of the Election Commission of India (ECI) documents over six months. These disclosures by Mr. Gandhi have created consternation among the citizens of India — if these are true, the entire electoral system in India would lose its credibility and India’s democracy will cease to be a genuine democracy.
The ECI’s stand is unusual
The second press conference, also in New Delhi, was held by the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and his colleagues on August 17. It was expected that the CEC would clarify the issues raised by the LoP. However, the statements made by the CEC were a kind of a pushback against what the LoP had said in his press conference. As a matter of fact, the press conference by the CEC left citizens none the wiser as many basic questions were just ignored. The press conference ended with the CEC issuing an ultimatum to the LoP — to either submit the details of his disclosures with a sworn affidavit or apologise to the nation. This unusual stand of the ECI shows that it too has joined the political slugfest. This is a stand that will continue to rattle political parties for a long time.
The ECI is a high constitutional body that is entrusted with the task of superintending, directing and controlling the preparation of electoral rolls and conducting elections to Parliament, State legislatures and to the offices of the President and the Vice President of India. Article 324 of the Constitution vests enormous powers in the ECI to perform this task. It is mandated to conduct elections in a free and fair manner, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has held that Article 324 is a reservoir of powers which the ECI can draw from in order to ensure that the elections are free and fair. However, it has to function within the Constitution and law.
Issuing an ultimatum to the LoP is not a part of the exercise of power under Article 324 or the election statutes. It is also not a part of the exercise of the powers of the ECI to join the adversarial political discourse in India.
The episode in Bangalore clearly points to the possibility of electoral lists being tampered with at some level. It is true that Mr. Gandhi’s disclosures months after the general election do not fit into the procedural mould created by the Representation of The People Act, 1950. This Act and the rules made thereunder contain a just, fair and transparent procedural framework which provides for multiple layers of scrutiny and public inspection and a just procedure for resolution of disputes. Further, the election statutes assume that there is a finality about elections. Therefore, these statutes cannot deal with the issues which Mr. Gandhi has raised.
The question is how to deal with it. Attempts to counter it with senseless technicalities and a demand for sworn affidavits are non-productive. Article 324 confers enormous powers on the ECI so that it would prepare the rolls and conduct elections in a fair manner. Article 324 implies responsibilities and obligations to exercise that power judiciously. So, when a citizen makes a complaint or a disclosure highlighting serious irregularities in the preparation of the electoral rolls, it is the constitutional obligation of the ECI to examine this carefully and fix the faults in the system. How could 80 voters be registered under the same address when it is clear that they cannot be ordinarily resident there? They voted because their names were on the roll. Who enrolled them and under whose directions are serious questions which need an answer. A person can be registered in a voters’ list only if he is ordinarily resident there. This term has been defined as permanent stay at a place. Are all these 80 people residing at one address permanently?
The Representation of The People Act 1950 provides for the revision of the electoral rolls. These rolls can be revised before every election or every year on the direction of the ECI or a special revision in a few constituencies or part thereof for which the ECI needs to record the reasons (Section 21 of The Representation of The People Act, 1950). Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 shows that the revision done annually can either be summary revision or intensive revision (intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily).
The Bihar SIR
The ECI is presently engaged in a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, a State where Assembly elections are due later this year. Actually, neither the Act not the Rules contain any term such as special intensive revision.
There are separate provisions for intensive revision and special revision. This writer is of the view that the SIR suffers from certain legal infirmities. Intensive revision can be done only in January which is the qualifying date whereas a special revision can be done at any time; but this will be limited to certain constituencies or parts thereof.
The Bihar SIR has the qualifying date as July 1, which is in violation of Section 14(b) in The Representation of The People Act, 1950, which says that the 1st day of January shall be the qualifying date. Qualifying date is the date on which the revision or preparation of the roll begins.
There are a number of media reports on the chaotic conditions in Bihar as a result of the SIR. Intensive revision within a month is a contradiction in terms. Rule 25(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, says that intensive revision means rolls have to be prepared afresh and Rule 8 says that the registration officer shall have to visit every dwelling house in the constituency to prepare the roll. It is anybody’s guess whether the registration officers would be able to visit every dwelling house in the whole State within one month and complete the enumeration formalities in accordance with the procedure. This has sparked off a huge political agitation in the State.
The ECI claims that the enumeration process has been completed and 65 lakh voters have been deleted from the roll. Much against the wishes of the ECI, the Supreme Court, in an interim order, directed the ECI to publish the names and the reasons for their deletion. This order of the Court has been welcomed by all.
Prescient words
The ECI is a powerful constitutional authority. But the ECI does not have unfettered powers. The Constitution has not given anybody or any authority it created untrammelled powers which may be misused to the detriment of democracy.
In A.C. Jose vs Sivan Pillai and Ors. (1984), Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali said, “If the Commission is armed with such unlimited and arbitrary powers and if it ever happens that the persons manning the commission shares or is wedded to a particular ideology, he could by giving odd directions cause a political havoc or bring about a constitutional crisis, setting at naught the integrity and independence of electoral process, so important and indispensable to the democratic system.” These are prophetic words.
P.D.T. Achary is former Secretary General, Lok Sabha
Published – August 27, 2025 12:16 am IST