​Tighten the process: on the Election Commission of India, election processes

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has raised troubling questions about the conduct of elections based on what transpired in the 2024 Assembly elections in Maharashtra. There are specific issues: the abnormal increase in voters listed in electoral rolls between the general election and Assembly elections, higher turnout numbers after 5 p.m. on voting day, and the Centre amending the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to restrict access to CCTV footage of the polling process. Mr. Gandhi has also questioned the process of appointing Election Commissioners, with the Union government refusing to implement a Supreme Court judgment in 2023 that recommended having the Chief Justice of India as a part of the selection panel. While political parties, including the BJP and the Congress, have raised complaints about Electronic Voting Machines in the past, many did not stand scrutiny considering the administrative and technological safeguards. The Congress has now focused on the electoral process, raising more fundamental issues that need to be unpacked separately.

A preliminary analysis by The Hindu of registered voters in States where the general election and Assembly elections were proximate showed that there were precedents of sharp increases in the electorate before Assembly elections. While the number of new voters added before the Assembly elections was high — more than 39 lakh voters in just six months following the general election — similar increases were observed in 2014 as well. The increase of nearly four million voters is a large number and the ECI should proactively release machine-readable data on the rolls for verification. Regarding the allegation that turnout increases were abnormal after 5 p.m, the argument does not hold water. This is based on provisional turnout figures, and Election Commission of India (ECI) data show that there was no significant increase in voting after 5 p.m. in Maharashtra. Provisional turnout figures shared via an app by the ECI are not entirely accurate as these are dependent on the manual entry of numbers during elections and may have discrepancies when compared to the accurate machine count. As final figures via Form 17C data from each booth are released only after a lag, it would be incorrect to rely on provisional turnout figures. However, there is another contention that merits the ECI’s response: retaining CCTV footage and providing parties and their nominees access to it to scrutinise complaints. The process of updating electoral rolls must be more transparent and involve political parties for scrutiny and verification. It is also incumbent upon parties to show alacrity during this process than cry foul after the results are out. Ultimately, the onus lies on the ECI to enhance transparency in the electoral process and, specifically, in providing electoral rolls and retaining CCTV footage for scrutiny.