In mid-2025, a major political storm broke out around allegations of “vote chori” (vote theft) in India. These allegations, primarily made by opposition leaders, claim serious irregularities in electoral rolls, deletion of legitimate voters, duplicate registrations, fake or invalid addresses, misuse of registration forms, and other forms of malpractices.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has strongly pushed back, demanding proof, filing of affidavits, or public apologies, while also defending the integrity of electoral processes and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. This article critically examines the issue: its origin, claims, counter-claims, legal and institutional framework, challenges to proving the allegations, and implications for democracy.
Fill out the form for UPSC notes
Origin of the Allegations
The controversy was triggered when Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Indian National Congress, during a press conference on 7 August 2025, alleged large-scale manipulation of electoral rolls in several states including Karnataka, Bihar, Haryana and Maharashtra. He asserted that in the Mahadevapura assembly segment of the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency (Karnataka), over 1,00,250 alleged bogus voters were found, comprising several categories of irregularities:
- Duplicate entries: names recurring in multiple electoral lists
- Fake or invalid addresses
- Bulk addresses, many voters registered to single addresses
- Misuse of Form 6 (used for first-time registration)
- Invalid or problematic photos etc.
He claimed that these irregularities, if present in many places, could have influenced election outcomes, particularly the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Election Commission’s Response
Demand for Affidavit or Apology
The ECI, led by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, challenged Rahul Gandhi to substantiate his vote chori allegations by filing a signed affidavit under oath within seven days, failing which the allegations would be considered baseless and an apology would be expected.
Clarification on Electoral Roll vs Voting
The ECI emphasised that having one’s name in more than one voter roll (duplicate entries) does not imply that a person has, or can, vote more than once. Voting and voter roll maintenance are governed by different laws.
For example:Under the Representation of People Act, 1950 and rules thereunder (e.g. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960) is the process of maintaining electoral rolls.
Voting is governed by separate rules, and casting more than one vote is a punishable offence. The fact that someone appears twice does not mean double voting.
Specific Defences of Alleged Irregularities
- House Number Zero / Addresses: In many rural or informal setups, houses may not have formal numbered addresses. The ECI noted that “0” is used as a placeholder/notional number in cases where house number is not available.
- Deaths, Migration, Deletions: The ECI explained that in Bihar, many deletions (roughly 65 lakh voters) were due to deaths, migration, duplication, etc., and that the names are being published with deletion reasons as directed by the Supreme Court.
- Special Intensive Revision (SIR): The electoral rolls are being revised in certain states (e.g. Bihar) in a thorough manner, which includes door-to-door verification. The ECI claims that the process is not being rushed, and that adequate time and legal procedure are being followed.
Legal and Institutional Framework
Relevant Laws & Rules
- Representation of People Act, 1950: sets rules for registration of electors and maintenance of electoral rolls.
- Representation of People Act, 1951 governs the actual election process (voting etc.)
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: include Rule 20(3)(b), which requires, in certain cases, that allegations of wrongful entries in voter lists be made under oath or signed declaration; this applies when someone claims that entries are ineligible etc.
Supreme Court Oversight
On 14 August 2025, the Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish online the names of approximately 65 lakh voters who had been deleted from the rolls, district/booth-wise, along with reasons for deletion, and to accept Aadhaar and voter ID as valid documents for inclusion in the draft roll. Citizens were given till 1 September to file objections.
Role of Election CommissionThe ECI is constitutionally entrusted with the conduct of free and fair elections. It is expected to act impartially, maintain electoral rolls, supervise voting and resolve disputes within the legal framework.
ECI’s processes include claims and objections mechanisms: draft rolls are made public, claims or corrections can be filed; election results can be challenged via election petitions (high courts) within set timeframes.
Get free UPSC notes
Analysis of Evidence So Far
What the Opposition Has Produced
The numbers cited by Rahul Gandhi for Mahadevapura: over 1,00,250 irregular entries, including roughly 40,009 fake or invalid addresses, 10,452 bulk voters at the same address, 33,692 misuses of Form-6 etc. Examples such as “house number zero”, names repeated, etc.
Claims of deletion of voters, errors in the SIR process, requests for digital voter lists and CCTV footage.
ECI’s Counter-Evidences and Gaps in Opposition’s Case
ECI has argued many of the examples are misunderstood. For instance, electoral roll entries with “0” as house number are often placeholders used in absence of formal numbering.
ECI claims the document shown by Rahul Gandhi related to a case (e.g. of a 70-year-old woman, “Shakun Rani”) was not issued by a polling officer; that the evidence is thus disputed.
The ECI also contends that duplication in rolls does not equate to multiple voting or vote theft. There is no credible proof yet submitted that individuals have cast more than one vote using duplicate roll entries.
Process Issues & Burden of Proof
Under Rule 20 (3) (b), when claims are made about irregular entries, the applicant may need to submit a declaration under oath. The ECI has asked Rahul Gandhi to comply with this.
The deadline set by the ECI expired (25 August 2025) for Rahul Gandhi to file the affidavit; as of that date, no signed declaration was submitted.
Critical Issues & Challenges
Distinguishing Error from Fraud
Administrative errors in rolls (duplicate names, incorrect addresses, etc.) are common in many democracies. Such errors don’t always translate into fraudulent voting. The challenge is proving that irregular entries resulted in illegal votes being cast, or that the anomalies were systemic and designed to alter outcomes.
Data Transparency and Access
Opposition demands include digital/machine-readable voter rolls, CCTV footage, constituency-wise detailed data. ECI has resisted releasing “machine-readable” rolls citing privacy concerns, Supreme Court rulings, etc.
Time Constraints & Legal Remedies
Electoral law provides windows for correction of electoral rolls via claims and objections, but these are time-bound (e.g. before draft rolls are finalised). Once results are declared, challenging them requires election petitions under strict timelines. Allegations made after the fact may not always find a remedy.
Political Incentives & Public Perception
In a charged political environment, allegations can spread rapidly via media and social media, sometimes before detailed verification. ECI’s demand for proof vs. public expectation of trust creates tension. Use of phrases like “vote chori” is criticised by the ECI as being inflammatory.
Institutional Response & Judicial Oversight
The Supreme Court’s order to publish lists of deleted voters, with reasons, and to accept Aadhaar/Voter ID for inclusion, has added oversight and transparency to the SIR process in Bihar.
The ECI’s internal process of demanding an affidavit under oath ensures legal accountability for allegations. Political parties and civil society (e.g. ADR) have weighed in, calling for deeper investigations.
Implications for Indian Democracy
Legitimacy of Electoral Processes
Public confidence in elections is foundational. Even the perception of vote theft or electoral manipulation can erode legitimacy.
ECI’s role as a neutral umpire is vital; the manner in which this controversy is handled could affect its credibility.
Precedent for Electoral Roll Management
The SIR exercise, claims of deletions, duplicate entries, address issues, etc., highlight existing structural issues in voter registration.
There is a need for systemic improvement: better data systems, regular audits, more robust verification, inclusive participation, especially for migrants, informal settlers, etc.
Political Polarisation & Rhetoric
The use of strong phrases like “vote chori” contributes to political polarisation. While they may mobilize public opinion, they risk reducing complex legal or procedural issues to simple slogans.
Legal Reforms
There may be a need to revisit rules regarding data transparency, voter roll access, identity proof requirements, privacy vs openness, etc.
Also possibly reforms in how uploaded deletions are notified, how citizens can object, how digital data is handled.
Evaluation: What Must Be Proved for Allegations to Hold
For “vote chori” allegations to be accepted legally or institutionally, the following should be demonstrated:
- Specific Instances of Fraud
Not just duplication in voter rolls, but that duplicated names resulted in multiple votes cast, or other fraudulent acts. - Link to Election Outcome
That the irregularities were large enough or concentrated in critical areas to affect result margins. - Adherence to Legal Procedure
Claims must be supported with lawful evidence (signed affidavit or declaration), within set rules and timelines (e.g. Rule 20 etc.). - Transparency and Auditability
Relevant data (voter rolls, deletion lists, proof of identity removals) made accessible for scrutiny. - Judicial or Independent Oversight
Either courts or independent audit bodies should validate claims in a transparent manner.
Comparative Perspective & Lessons
While the controversy is domestic, similar issues have arisen in other democracies (e.g. debates over voter ID, roll purges, registration errors in the U.S., address irregularities, etc.).
Lessons include:
- Ensuring procedural fairness and transparency (public draft rolls, objections process).
- Balancing data privacy with openness – e.g. not releasing photo-bearing or sensitive information in easily manipulable formats.
- Use of technology (digital rolls, mapping, GIS) to reduce address errors.
- Active participation by citizens, civil society, political parties in verifying rolls.
Conclusion
The “Vote Chori” issue is a significant moment in India’s democratic journey. On one hand, the allegations raised by Rahul Gandhi and others highlight potential lacunae in electoral rolls: invalid addresses, duplicate entries, over-reports, deletions without due process. On the other hand, the ECI has shown willingness to defend its processes, explained many of the alleged anomalies, demanded legal proof, and overseen a revision process under Supreme Court oversight.
For the democratic fabric to remain robust, this controversy must lead not only to political debate but also to institutional reforms: clearer rules for transparency, improved data infrastructure, better accountability, and timely corrective processes. Ultimately, unless claims are substantiated with credible, documented, judicially acceptable evidence, they remain allegations. But equivalently, the ECI must ensure that its roll-management processes are beyond reproach, so that no genuine voter is disenfranchised, and public trust in elections is upheld.