In yet another set of allegations against supposed warts in India’s electoral system, Rahul Gandhi claimed in a press conference that over 6,000 votes had been deleted from the Aland constituency during the Karnataka assembly election using centralised phones and software from outside the state. The targeted voters,
Mr Gandhi added, were supporters of the Congress and belonged to socially marginalised groups. Karnataka’s criminal investigation department, which was probing these irregularities, had not received any response to its missives to the Election Commission of India, Mr Gandhi added. In August, the leader of the Opposition had asserted that over one lakh votes had been stolen in Karnataka’s Mahadevpura assembly segment in the general elections of 2024. The EC, as is its wont these days, has dismissed Mr Gandhi’s charge as “baseless” and claimed that the institution itself had investigated the matter on the basis of a first information report.
It appears that the EC is not receptive to examining Mr Gandhi’s serious accusations. This is unwarranted. As the custodian of the sanctity of India’s electoral process and, by that virtue, the nation’s democratic edifice, the EC, much like Caesar’s wife, needs to be above suspicion, both in public perception and deed. This means that any assertion of misconduct — substantial or not — needs to be examined by the EC and then dismissed with evidence; mere denial will not do. In fact, the august institution has had a tradition of being transparent to scrutiny from political parties. The manner in which it dealt with the cynicism with electronic voting machines is a case in point. What explains the EC’s stubborn resistance and counter-accusations in this instance? The need, therefore, is for a truly impartial investigation into the infirmities that Mr Gandhi has pointed fingers at. The judiciary is an institution that can be relied on in this context. There is also the people’s court: that appears to be Mr Gandhi’s strategic constituency. The Congress leader had attempted to mobilise public opinion on vote theft — apparently with some degree of success — in poll-bound Bihar. But the criticality of the issue transcends electoral outcomes. It concerns a process that is the proverbial pillar that holds aloft India’s democracy. Public representatives and institutions must ensure that this pillar is not weakened or even soiled.