From forged signatures to dead voters and inflated rolls—questions on Bihar’s draft list demand clear answers. The ECI cannot hide behind technicalities and seeking accountability from Rahul Gandhi.
BY Navin Upadhyay
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has asked Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to either submit an affidavit within a week affirming the truth of his “vote chori” allegations or issue an apology to the nation. This move has triggered widespread outrage in the opposition circle and also raises a larger democratic question: should the Commission itself not be held to the same standard of accountability it seeks from political leaders? If Rahul Gandhi must swear on oath, why not the ECI too — especially on matters that strike at the very heart of electoral integrity?
For instance, will the ECI file its own sworn undertaking that the alleged irregularities Gandhi flagged in his August 7 press conference are baseless? That booth-level officers (BLOs) went door to door in Bihar, distributed and collected enumeration forms properly, and did not forge signatures? That the draft rolls are free of dead voters, inflated household entries, or foreign nationals? That millions of citizens in Bihar have not been left out due to documentation requirements. And that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is not an unprecedented, selective exercise aimed at indirectly disenfranchising voters in an election year? Unless the Commission responds transparently to these specific concerns, the public will be left wondering if its credibility can withstand the same scrutiny it demands of others.
ECI’s Ultimatum To Rahul Gandhi 🔥🔥
Submit Written Oath or Apology in 7 days
There is no 3rd option for youRahul Gandhi has no place to hide now pic.twitter.com/m6LRi86giF
— Hardik (@Humor_Silly) August 17, 2025
READ: INDIA Plans Impeachment Motion Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
It is important for Gyanesh Kumar to come clean on these issues, because as a constitutional authority he is accountable to millions of Indians whose voting rights are threatened by one expose after another and the Election Commission’s repeated failure to investigate them. If the ECI believes it is the victim of a political agenda, then Kumar must unequivocally affirm this by rejecting the charges on oath. Hiding behind one technical clause or another—whether the 45-day limit on preserving video recordings of voting or citing voter privacy to deny machine-readable voter lists—only deepens suspicion. And if voter privacy is the real concern, why then install CCTV cameras and review the footage in the first place?
Will ECI Gyanesh Kumar answer the following questions on oath?
-
That the BLO went door to door in Bihar, gave the enumeration form in duplicate, and also collected them?
-
That there are no cases where BLOs forged signatures of voters without providing them forms?
-
That there are no dead voters in Bihar’s draft list?
-
That more than 200 voters are shown to be living under the same roof in houses not marked ‘O’?
-
That there are large numbers of citizens of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Nepal in Bihar’s draft voter list, as claimed by EC sources in the past?
-
That millions of voters in Bihar have none of the documents sought by the EC to be eligible as voters?
-
That the EC has not registered new voters during the SIR?
-
That never in the past was a similar SIR carried out anywhere in the country in the year the state went to elections?
-
That millions of genuine voters could be disenfranchised if Aadhaar was excluded as one of the documents for eligibility?
-
That the EC was not trying to carry out an indirect exercise in the garb of SIR?
सिर्फ चोरी नहीं, अब सीनाज़ोरी
चुनाव आयोग से जवाब की उम्मीद थी,
मिली सिर्फ लफ़्फ़ाज़ी और सीनाज़ोरी।#VoterList #ElectoralTransparency pic.twitter.com/o46LRiMp7D— Yogendra Yadav (@_YogendraYadav) August 17, 2025
These questions go to the heart of the Election Commission’s credibility and transparency. If the BLOs have indeed followed due process, there should be no hesitation in releasing details of how the door-to-door verification was carried out, how many forms were actually distributed and collected, and how cases of duplication or fraud have been addressed. The people of Bihar deserve clear answers on whether their right to vote has been tampered with in any way.
READ: Back-to-Back Heroin Bust in Imphal Valley
The Election Commission must also clarify why such a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has been launched in an election year, a move unprecedented in India’s electoral history. Is this exercise truly about purifying the rolls, or is it an indirect attempt to reshape the voter list in ways that could disenfranchise millions, particularly the poor, Dalits, minorities, and migrant workers? Silence will only deepen suspicions; the EC owes citizens a transparent explanation.
If only the EC comes on oath, it will give it the moral authority to seek the same undertaking from Rahul Gandhi on oath.
