+ Follow
Image by Pixabay

Disclaimer: This editorial represents the considered opinion of an author deeply concerned about the erosion of democratic institutions. The views expressed are based on publicly available information and established legal principles, reflecting the urgent need for accountability in India's electoral system.

Introduction

India's democracy stands at a crossroads where the very foundation of electoral legitimacy is being questioned. The recent revelations surrounding electoral roll irregularities from Maharashtra to Karnataka and now the unprecedented crisis unfolding in Bihar paint a troubling picture of institutional failure that threatens the core principle of "one person, one vote." As a legal practitioner who has witnessed the evolution of India's democratic institutions, I find myself compelled to examine what appears to be a systemic breakdown in electoral administration that demands immediate judicial and parliamentary intervention.

The allegations levelled by Rahul Gandhi on August 7, 2025, rise above opinionated politics and strike at the heart of constitutional governance. His detailed presentation at the All India Congress Committee headquarters revealed disturbing patterns that, when examined through the lens of legal precedent and constitutional mandate, expose potentially criminal violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Maharashtra: A Case Study in Statistical Impossibility

The mathematical impossibility flagged by Gandhi regarding Maharashtra's voter rolls represents more than managerial omission; instead, it constitutes prima facie evidence of electoral fraud. The claim that 39 lakh new voters were added between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, resulting in a total voter count (9.7 crore) exceeding the state's eligible adult population (9.54 crore), defies demographic logic.

Under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Election Commission is mandated to prepare and revise electoral rolls with "due care and diligence." When voter additions occur at rates that exceed population growth by factors of ten, as evidenced in Maharashtra, the Commission's statutory duty transforms from administrative convenience to constitutional obligation for transparency and accountability.

The precision of BJP victories in 25 Lok Sabha constituencies by margins under 33,000 votes, coupled with voter list anomalies, suggests what legal scholars might term "statistical manipulation"—a phenomenon where electoral outcomes appear engineered rather than reflecting genuine democratic choice. This pattern, when viewed against the backdrop of late-hour voting surges post-5:30 PM across 50 constituencies, creates a compelling case for judicial scrutiny under Article 324 of the Constitution.

The Mahadevapura Revelations: A Forensic Analysis

The six-month Congress investigation in Karnataka's Mahadevapura constituency provides perhaps the most unfavourable evidence of systematic electoral manipulation in votes. The discovery of 1,00,250 allegedly fraudulent votes, including 11,965 duplicate voters, 40,009 fake addresses, and 10,452 bulk registrations at single addresses, represents a scale of irregularity that cannot be dismissed as clerical error.

From a legal standpoint, these findings constitute potential violations under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 171E (bribery), Section 171F (undue influence), and Section 177 (furnishing false information). The misuse of Form 6 entries by 33,692 voters predominantly over 40 years of age, rather than the expected 18-23 demographic, suggests coordinated fraud that warrants criminal investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Bihar Emergency: Democracy in Free Fall

The current crisis unfolding in Bihar through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 represents an unprecedented assault on electoral rights. The Election Commission has released the names of 65 lakh people removed from the draft voter list in Bihar under its special intensive revision (SIR) exercise, following Supreme Court intervention that mandated transparency in deletion procedures.

Justice Surya Kant's observation during the hearing, "If 2.2 million people have died, why is it not disclosed at the booth level? If it comes in the public domain, then that narrative will disappear," reflects the essence of judicial scepticism regarding ECI's explanations. The Court's directive to publish deletion details represents more than procedural compliance; it embodies the constitutional principle of transparency essential to democratic governance.

The revelation that the objection form was never shared publicly until August 18, 2025, many days after the SIR process began, exposes procedural violations that may render the entire exercise legally invalid. Under natural justice principles established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, affected parties must be given an adequate opportunity to be heard before adverse action is taken.

The "Living Dead" Phenomenon: A Humanitarian Crisis

Records reveal that a detailed review and updation of the Bihar state electoral roll was completed by January 2025. The roll was found to be robust. Officials were updating the roll well into June. Suddenly, the Election Commission of India called it faulty and junked it. This abrupt reversal, affecting nearly 80 million voters, raises serious questions about the Commission's constitutional mandate and administrative competence.

The arbitrary declaration of living voters as "dead" in electoral rolls represents a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and liberty) as expanded by judicial interpretation to include the right to democratic participation. Each falsely declared "dead" voter suffers disenfranchisement, when a constitutional injury that requires immediate remedy through mandamus proceedings.

Institutional Breakdown: The ECI's Constitutional Crisis

The Election Commission's refusal to provide machine-readable voter lists represents a departure from global democratic best practices and potentially violates the Right to Information Act, 2005. While security concerns regarding searchable data for profiling and surveillance are valid, the complete opacity maintained by the ECI exceeds reasonable security measures and enters the realm of deliberate obstruction.

The destruction of CCTV footage from Maharashtra polling stations within months of the 2024 elections defies standard evidence preservation protocols observed in mature democracies. In the United Kingdom, such footage is preserved for a full year precisely to enable post-electoral scrutiny. This destruction constitutes potential obstruction of justice and warrants investigation under Section 201 of the IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).

The Question of Institutional Independence

International observers have noted India's 2024 general election saw a slight decline in electoral integrity, particularly in adjudication and perceptions of election management. Concerns were raised over the impartiality of the Election Commission following a 2023 legal change giving the executive significant influence. This external assessment corroborates domestic concerns about the Commission's independence and a principle fundamental to free and fair elections.

The ECI's defensive posturing, demanding signed declarations from complainants rather than investigating evidence, suggests an institution more concerned with protecting its reputation than fulfilling its constitutional mandate. This approach violates the principle established in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India that constitutional authorities must act with objectivity and fairness.

Legal Remedies and Constitutional Solutions

The Supreme Court must exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to ensure electoral integrity. Specific reliefs that should be sought include:

  •  Mandamus for Digital Transparency: Directing the ECI to provide machine-readable voter lists with appropriate security safeguards, similar to systems operating successfully in Australia and Canada.
  •  Independent Audit Mandate: Ordering comprehensive third-party audits of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Bihar, conducted by retired judges or constitutional experts.
  • Evidence Preservation Orders: Directing preservation of all CCTV footage, voter registration documents, and digital records from recent elections for a minimum period of two years.

Parliamentary Accountability

Parliament must assert its constitutional role in electoral oversight. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on electoral reforms, inactive since 2018, should be reconstituted with expanded powers to investigate systematic irregularities. The Representation of the People Act requires urgent amendments to mandate digital transparency and establish criminal penalties for electoral roll manipulation.

The current crisis exposes fundamental flaws in India's electoral architecture. Constitutional amendments may be necessary to:

  • Establish an Electoral Integrity Commission separate from the ECI for investigating irregularities
  • Mandate digital transparency in all electoral processes
  • Create enforceable timelines for complaint resolution
  • Establish criminal liability for electoral officials who fail in their statutory duties

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Democratic Legitimacy

The ECI must undergo comprehensive reforms to restore public confidence. This includes adopting international best practices for electoral administration, establishing transparent grievance mechanisms, and subjecting its processes to regular audit by independent agencies.

The Commission's current approach has been defensive, resistant, and dismissive of legitimate concerns, which is adverse to its constitutional role. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer's observation in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain that "democracy is government by discussion" extends to electoral administration, which must be conducted through transparent dialogue rather than institutional secrecy.

Civil Society Mobilisation

The legal fraternity, civil society organisations, and concerned citizens must mobilise to protect electoral integrity. Public interest litigation should be filed in every state where irregularities are suspected. Bar associations should provide pro bono legal services to disenfranchised voters, particularly those falsely declared dead in Bihar.

Media organisations must fulfil their Fourth pillar of democracy roles & responsibilities by conducting independent investigations and maintaining pressure for accountability. The current crisis will not be resolved through administrative assurances, as it requires sustained public scrutiny and legal action.

While biased politics may have triggered these revelations, the solution requires cross-party consensus. The BJP, as the ruling party, has a constitutional obligation to ensure fair elections regardless of electoral advantage. Its current dismissive stance weakens democratic institutions and undermines its own legitimacy.

Opposition parties must move beyond protest politics to constructive engagement. Filing formal complaints under the Representation of the People Act, providing evidence to judicial authorities, and proposing specific reforms would strengthen their case and serve democratic interests.

Conclusion

India's electoral crisis represents more than administrative failure, and it embodies a constitutional emergency that threatens the legitimacy of democratic governance. The systematic irregularities documented across multiple states suggest a coordinated revolt of electoral processes that requires immediate and decisive intervention.

As Justice Chandrachud observed in Indian National Congress v. Institute for Democratic Reforms, electoral integrity is not merely procedural; it is substantive to constitutional democracy. The current crisis tests whether India's institutions possess the resilience to confront systematic threats to democratic legitimacy.

The legal path forward is clear that comprehensive judicial intervention, parliamentary mistake, and constitutional reform. The political will to implement these solutions will determine whether India's democracy emerges stronger from this crisis or succumbs to the silent erosion of public faith in electoral legitimacy.

The time for administrative excuses and political deflection has passed. India's constitution demands action, its citizens deserve transparency, and its democratic future hangs in the balance. The legal system must rise to meet this challenge, for in defending electoral integrity, we defend the very soul of constitutional governance that generations of freedom fighters intended and countless citizens continue to trust.

.    .    .

References:

Discus