Most questions on ‘Vote theft’ and Bihar SIR remain unanswered despite ECI’s press conference. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar repeatedly cited procedural safeguards and legal protocols to defend the SIR as transparent, while outright rejecting the allegations of voter fraud, without directly addressing any of the specific claims.
Published Aug 17, 2025 | 9:55 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 17, 2025 | 10:15 PM
Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar
Synopsis: On Sunday, the Election Commission of India held a press meet to address growing criticism of its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar and allegations of ‘vote theft’. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar repeatedly cited procedural safeguards and legal protocols to defend the SIR as transparent, while outright rejecting the allegations of voter fraud, without directly addressing any of the specific claims. Many of the questions raised by the press were also ignored or sidestepped entirely.
Amid mounting criticism of the Election Commission’s handling of allegations of ‘vote theft’ raised by the Congress and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, and the SIR in Bihar, the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Election Commissioners held a joint press conference on Sunday, 17 August.
In his opening remarks, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar defended the SIR in Bihar as a transparent process carried out in response to decades-long demands by political parties. He also rejected the allegations of vote theft.
Later, faced with a flurry of sharp questions from the press, including calls for direct investigations and roll transparency, to queries on inclusion, exclusion, and accountability for systemic errors, Kumar was the only one to respond. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi sat silently beside him. His replies leaned heavily on technical procedures, repeatedly deferring, avoiding, or dismissing concerns about openness, engagement, and transparency in electoral data and records.
Here are the questions that the Election Commission did not answer.
“If none of the political parties had found any issues with the draft lists in those 45 days, so now after so many days, how are you making these allegations, ‘without proof.’ We know what their intention is, the entire country’s voters understand.”
“The process that started June 24 finished by July 20. The previous SIR in Bihar in 2003 ran July 14 to August 14 – again, successfully. People ask, ‘Why July, during bad weather?’ This is normal as per legal timelines and precedents.”
“Under the Constitution of India, only Indian citizens aged 18 and above are entitled to vote. If someone is found not to be an Indian citizen through the SIR scrutiny, their name will not be added as a voter. This is a legal and transparent process, not NRC. The scrutiny will continue till September 30.”
“The 2.2 million deaths found are not all recent but cover many years previously missed. Voter rolls and polling are distinct. Even if the roll has errors, a voter can only vote once. The law and process ensure this. Allegations without affidavits and proof are baseless.”
“Deleting a voter’s name on someone’s mere suggestion is dangerous. Despite technology, the Commission never undertook deletion based on computer matches alone. Only the voter themselves or SIR enumeration form can correct duplicates. Linking with Aadhaar raises legal and privacy issues – not addressed here.”
“The documents submitted are currently under review until September 30. Only after thorough verification will names be accepted or rejected. It is premature to speculate before verification ends.”
“The Supreme Court has ordered that aggrieved persons can pair their enumeration forms with Aadhaar, and the Commission respects and implements this.”
“We found about 300,000 people with duplicate EPIC numbers and changed those numbers. If one person has multiple EPIC numbers, those cases are investigated individually. It takes time to cross-check in such cases.”
“The Commission emphasised previous meetings and consultations but did not specifically address the concern about the extent or sufficiency of consultations for SIR launch.
“The Supreme Court made it clear that each district should have its own website with an EPIC-searchable list, and within 56 hours, we complied. Machine-readable formats raise privacy issues, as stated in the 2019 Supreme Court judgment.”
“Voter turnout analysis shows normal patterns, with no abnormal surge in the last hour. Saying the opposite repeatedly does not make it true.”
“Under the law, anyone who is an elector in the constituency may raise objections using forms. If you are not an elector and want to raise a complaint, you must follow Rule 20(3)(b) with an affidavit and oath.”
“The Commission cannot act on unverified or politically motivated allegations; legal and constitutional constraints require sworn evidence.”
Question: The draft electoral rolls were first made available online in a machine-readable, searchable format. After Rahul Gandhi’s press conference, they were switched to low-quality images that could neither be searched nor processed digitally. Was this change prompted by the volume of searches being conducted?
ECI response: “Regarding machine-readable lists, at the outset I mentioned that in 2019, the Honorable Supreme Court studied this matter in depth and observed that providing a machine-readable electoral roll could infringe on voter privacy. Therefore, machine-readable is a separate matter.
“‘Machine-readable’ means you can not only read that electoral roll, but if you have the list on your computer, you could extract the photos and use them elsewhere. If someone’s photo is placed somewhere else, and is altered, then when that person turns up to vote, there could be a mismatch – meaning it would hinder that person’s right to vote.
“So, machine-readable is a different thing. Machine-readable formats are prohibited – not just by the Election Commission but as a result of the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2019.”
Question:
“Rahul Gandhi, as Leader of the Opposition, has raised questions about the voter rolls. Given your insistence that allegations need evidence, do you consider his claims serious or politically motivated? If he does not submit an affidavit or apology, will the confusion surrounding these allegations continue? Will the Commission formally affirm that its rolls are accurate and the claims baseless?”
ECI response:
“If media reports a complaint about a single individual, the CEO/chief electoral officer or DM often investigates suo moto. But when the allegation is about 150,000 voters, how would you do this? Is it fair to notice 150,000 people with zero evidence or affidavit and call them ‘fake’ without proof?
“If the Commission had done that, would its reputation rise or fall? No valid voter’s name will be struck without evidence; the Commission stands as a rock with every voter.”
“If someone makes a presentation with data not from the Commission, and claims ‘polling officers said a woman voted twice’ with no affidavit – that is not grounds for action. On such serious allegations, the Commission cannot act without sworn evidence; it would be unconstitutional and illegal.”
