Election Commission of India Rebuts Rahul Gandhi’s Allegations of Electoral Misconduct; Urges Poll Officials to Uphold Democratic Duties Amid Political Heat
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a strong rebuttal to a series of allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, who recently accused the constitutional body of facilitating electoral malpractice allegedly in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In a firmly worded response released on Friday, the Election Commission labelled the remarks as baseless, politically motivated, and irresponsible, while also offering robust support to polling personnel and officers across the country.
The EC’s public statement comes in the wake of repeated charges made by Rahul Gandhi, who claimed he possessed “open and shut evidence” of what he described as “vote chori” (vote theft) during the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
He also alleged that such instances of electoral manipulation were not isolated but had occurred in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and even during the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections.
ECI Dismisses Accusations, Defends Electoral Machinery
The poll body, which is constitutionally mandated to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections, categorically rejected Gandhi’s accusations, stating:
“The Election Commission ignores such baseless allegations being made daily, and despite the daily threats being given, asks all election officials to ignore such irresponsible statements and work fairly and transparently.”
The EC emphasised that its electoral machinery remains committed to upholding democratic norms and public trust. It expressed full confidence in polling officials, ground staff, and administrative personnel, urging them to remain unaffected by politically charged narratives and to continue discharging their constitutional duties with integrity and diligence.
Rahul Gandhi’s Escalating Allegations and Past Grievances
Rahul Gandhi’s remarks form part of a growing list of complaints from the Congress Party and its allies, who have frequently expressed doubts over the fairness of elections under the current government.
In June 2025, Gandhi had already alleged widespread match-fixing in the Maharashtra Assembly elections, claiming that the results were manipulated to favour the BJP, especially in constituencies where they were trailing.
He had further demanded access to CCTV footage from polling booths in Maharashtra during the last hours of voting, suggesting that the footage might reveal discrepancies or foul play.
However, EC sources clarified that, as per established procedure, such footage is made available to judicial bodies like high courts if an election petition is filed—clearly underscoring that the matter must follow due legal and institutional routes.
The Commission reiterated that its procedures are guided by a robust legal framework, and any grievances must be pursued through formal written submissions or election petitions, rather than through public allegations or media soundbites.
Political Fallout and Reactions from the BJP Leadership
The controversy took a sharper political turn when Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, criticised Rahul Gandhi’s statements, calling them “anti-national” and unbecoming of a person holding such a high constitutional position.
“Rahul Gandhi is not a child. He is the Leader of the Opposition. Giving anti-national statements and disrupting Parliament is unacceptable,” said Rijiju, questioning the intent behind the allegations.
Adding fuel to the political discourse, BJP National Spokesperson Sambit Patra launched a scathing attack on Rahul Gandhi’s choice of words. Responding to Gandhi’s statement that he would “explode on the Election Commission,” Patra remarked:
“Will Rahul Gandhi explode like a bomb? What kind of language is this? Their job seems to be to explode. They have no other work to do.”
Patra added that such language is not only undemocratic but also reflective of a dangerous mindset. He accused the Congress of lacking faith in constitutional mechanisms, saying:
“You say you will go to the Supreme Court or protest democratically—but ‘explode like a bomb’? This is undignified language. We are those who believe in democracy. Even if they explode an atom bomb, we will safeguard the Constitution.”
