Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar also defended the ECI’s recent decision not to publish machine-readable voter lists in Bihar, calling it a move to ensure voter privacy.
Published Aug 17, 2025 | 4:50 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 17, 2025 | 4:50 PM
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar
Synopsis: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on 17 August defended the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, asserting that the exercise was initiated in response to long-standing demands by political parties. He rejected allegations of voter fraud and “vote theft” and maintained that the ECI’s refusal to publish machine-readable voter lists was to protect voter privacy.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has defended the contentious and ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, saying the exercise was undertaken in response to repeated and decades-long demands from all political parties for reforms.
“Over the last two decades, almost every political party has been calling for reforms in electoral rolls. To meet this demand, the ECI has undertaken the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), beginning with Bihar. Under the SIR process, every voter, booth-level officer, and every political party was provided with the draft list. While the draft was being prepared, each party’s booth-level officer authenticated it with their signature,” he said, addressing a press conference on Sunday, 17 August.
Kumar stressed that the process was being conducted in a transparent and cooperative manner. Voters had themselves submitted 28,373 claims and objections, while 1,63,003 applications were received from individuals who had turned or would turn 18 by 1 October.
He reminded political parties that the deadline for filing claims and objections was 1 September. “The doors of the ECI remain open to all, equally,” he added.
Responding to allegations of ‘vote theft’ brought chiefly by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Chief Election Commissioner rejected claims of large-scale fraud.
“Only those whose names appear on the voter list are entitled to cast their vote for their chosen candidate. In the conduct of Lok Sabha elections, more than one crore officials, over ten lakh Booth Level Agents, and more than twenty lakh polling agents of various candidates worked together. In such a vast and transparent process involving so many, is it really possible for any voter to steal votes?” he questioned.
He dismissed charges of dual voting as “baseless” and said such claims “neither intimidate the ECI nor undermine the confidence of the voters.”
On 7 August, Rahul Gandhi accused the ECI and the BJP of “stealing” the Lok Sabha from Karnataka, claiming his party had proof of electoral roll fraud in constituencies such as Mahadevapura in Bengaluru.
Kumar insisted the Commission “stands, and will always stand, firmly with all the voters of India, whether rich or poor, elderly, women, youth, across all sections of society and all faiths, without discrimination.”
Kumar also defended the ECI’s recent decision not to publish machine-readable voter lists in Bihar, calling it a move to ensure voter privacy rather than a deliberate attempt to block verification of electoral rolls, as alleged. He referred to the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling against machine-readable voter lists, citing risks to privacy.
“As far as the issue of a machine-readable voter list is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held, in 2019, that such a system could infringe upon voter privacy,” he said.
“And voter privacy can indeed be breached. Only a few days ago, we saw photographs of voters displayed before the media without their consent. Allegations were made against them, and their images misused. Should our mothers, sisters, and daughters be subjected to such treatment?”
The Chief Election Commissioner’s remarks come in the wake of increasing criticism by opposition parties of the SIR, which they have accused of being an exercise to disenfranchise legitimate voters in order to make the upcoming Bihar assembly elections favourable to the BJP-led NDA.
The Supreme Court had earlier ordered the ECI to publish the 65 lakh voters deleted from the rolls during the SIR. While the poll body argued that it was not legally bound to publish the deletions, the apex court said transparency demanded that the lists be made public.
The ECI defended its move, citing its constitutional authority under Article 324 and provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Kumar alleged that “verified documents submitted by district presidents of political parties and their nominated BLAs are being disregarded by state- or national-level leaders, who, ignoring the ground reality, are attempting to spread confusion.”
“When more than seven crore voters of Bihar stand with the ECI, then neither the ECI nor the voters can be questioned,” he declared.
Kumar further said the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not recognise political parties as ruling or opposition, and would not deviate from its constitutional responsibilities in ensuring free and fair elections.
“How then can the ECI differentiate between these parties? For the ECI, there is neither a ruling party nor an opposition party. Whatever the doubts, whether raised by any party, the ECI will not deviate from its constitutional duty.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
