LEADER of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s attack on the Election Commission, in a piece in The Indian Express Saturday, reiterates allegations he has made in the past and contradicts Maharashtra Assembly election data the poll panel has released.

A scrutiny by The Indian Express of his allegations and data around each shows that Gandhi’s criticism selectively cites records, ignores crucial context and, in one case, even draws a connection where none exists.

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was unavailable for comment. However, a senior EC official said: “After losing the match, blaming the referee has become standard practice. These allegations are absurd and a bid to defame the poll body. ECI has responded to INC on 24 December 2024 on the same issues. It seems like the party has not shared the reply with him (Gandhi).”

Story continues below this ad

Consider:

🔴 Appointment of Election Commissioners: Gandhi questioned the government’s decision to replace the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister on the panel responsible for appointing Election Commissioners—over-riding a 2023 Supreme Court ruling and raising concerns about the neutrality of the selection process.

The fact is that successive governments across party lines—including the UPA—had opportunities to institutionalise a more transparent appointment mechanism but failed to do so.

For instance, in 2007, the Administrative Reforms Commission, chaired by Congress leader M. Veerappa Moily, recommended a collegium system for appointing Election Commissioners, citing the “far-reaching importance” of the EC. The ARC proposed a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, Leader of the Opposition, Law Minister, and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman. However, this recommendation was never implemented.

Story continues below this ad

Nor was a similar proposal made by the 20th Law Commission, headed by Justice A.P. Shah, which submitted its report to the NDA government in 2015.

“Now for the first time, a law made by Parliament under Article 325 is in place since 2023 for the appointment of CEC and ECs. Which is better—the earlier system or the new one? Now, there is consultation, there is transparency and there is a concept of majority,” a senior EC official said.

🔴 Increase in new voters: Gandhi flagged what he called an “incredible leap” of 41 lakh new voters added in Maharashtra within five months between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections—almost equal to the number added over the previous five years—suggesting possible manipulation of the voter rolls.

However, under election laws, political parties are involved at every stage of preparing the final electoral roll. Election authorities regularly hold meetings with political parties, provide them free copies of draft and final rolls, and publish these on official websites. During the summary revision period, weekly lists of additions and deletions are shared to allow objections.

Story continues below this ad

Ahead of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election, 1,03,727 booth-level agents (BLAs) were appointed by political parties, including 27,099 from the Congress. These agents are responsible for interacting with election officials to flag any discrepancies at the polling station level.

Yet, during this revision, fewer than 100 appeals pertaining to additions or deletions were filed by party agents across all parties.

🔴 Voter turnout: Gandhi questioned the reported voter turnout jump from 58.22% at 5 pm on November 20, 2024, to 66.05% the following morning—an increase of 7.83 percentage points, or about 76 lakh voters. He called the rise unprecedented, noting that in the 2019 Maharashtra polls, the difference between provisional and final turnout was only 0.64 percentage points.

The fact is that the poll watchdog has always treated turnout figures released on polling day as provisional—and for good reason. Polling officers prioritise the integrity of the voting process over real-time reporting, and delays in updates are common.

Story continues below this ad

Before the Voter Turnout app, the EC would brief media around 6 pm on polling day, with officials consistently stating that the 5 pm figures were tentative, as voting often extended beyond the official deadline. In this context, the gap between the provisional turnout reported at 5 pm and the final figure released the next morning is not unusual—especially when compared to previous elections.

On Saturday, the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer’s office clarified that the difference between provisional and final voter turnout figures in 2024 was not unusual when compared to 2019. In 2019, turnout rose from approximately 54.43% at 5 pm to 61.10% final; in 2024, it rose from 58.22% to 66.05%. The CEO’s office said final figures are based on official records (Form 17C), provided to polling agents for verification.

It also pointed out that Gandhi’s data comparison was flawed: for 2019, he used provisional turnout figures recorded at the actual end of polling—which may have extended beyond 6 pm—alongside the final figures. But for 2024, he compared the 5 pm provisional turnout (before polling had ended) with the final numbers.

Further, EC officials said that in 2024, an average of 58 lakh voters cast their votes every hour in Maharashtra. Based on this, 116 lakh voters could have voted in the last two hours alone—making the increase of 76 lakh voters completely plausible.

Story continues below this ad

🔴 ‘Bogus’ Voting: Gandhi further alleged that the surge in voter turnout was concentrated in 12,000 booths across 85 constituencies where the BJP had fared poorly in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls and connected this to gains made by the BJP in the Assembly polls. He cited Kamthi Assembly seat as an example, claiming BJP’s votes rose from 1.19 lakh in the Lok Sabha election to 1.75 lakh in the Assembly poll, while Congress figures remained mostly stable.

However, the EC allows candidates and their polling agents full access to all polling booths to raise objections in real time. Even after results are declared, candidates may challenge the outcome by filing election petitions in High Court.

Congress candidate Suresh Yadavrao Bhoyar, who contested from Kamthi Assembly seat, has not filed such a petition. Of the 112 election petitions filed across Maharashtra, only 28 are from Congress—and Kamthi is not among them.

When asked about Gandhi’s claim, a Maharashtra CEO official said it was factually incorrect. Kamthi falls under the Ramtek Lok Sabha seat, which was contested by Shiv Sena in the general election—not the BJP. “Therefore, the question of the BJP receiving 1.19 lakh votes in Kamthi during the Lok Sabha polls does not arise,” the official said.

Story continues below this ad

The officer also pointed out that Bhoyar received 1,07,064 votes in 2019 and 1,34,033 in 2024, an increase in support.

🔴 ‘Concealing’ evidence: Accusing the Election Commission of responding with “silence and even aggression,” Rahul Gandhi said requests to access voter rolls from the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections were denied, and that the poll watchdog has also refused to provide videography and CCTV footage of the polling process in Maharashtra.

Electoral rolls—lists of registered voters—are already available to political parties. What cannot be shared is the list of those who actually voted, as this would violate the “secrecy of voting,” a foundational principle in ensuring free and fair elections, a top official said. It’s for this reason the EC provides private voting compartments for each voter. Disclosing post-poll attendance could expose voters to intimidation or pressure.

On CCTV footage, it is a fact that in December 2024, the EC—after consultations with the Centre—amended the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict access to electronic records. This followed a Punjab and Haryana High Court directive ordering the EC to share footage with advocate Mehmood Pracha. The Commission has argued that providing CCTV footage would amount to violation of secrecy of vote and open it up to potential misuse using artificial intelligence.

Story continues below this ad

Asked about this, an official in the State CEO office said, “In case of any grievance or objection related to the election process, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, under Section 80, provides a legal option in the form of an Election Petition, which may be filed before the Hon’ble High Court. If the Court deems it necessary during the proceedings of such a petition, the relevant electronic or documentary evidence related to the election process is produced before the Court as per its directives.”