There are many ways to question an election. One can examine voter turnout, constituency-wise results, polling patterns, counting procedures, electoral rolls or the conduct of the Election Commission.
Or, apparently, one can simply look at the calendar – preferably after checking the dates.
A graphic doing the rounds carries a claim attributed to ‘Cockroach’ Abhijit Dipke that the BJP’s vote share rose in Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi after Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner, and appears to connect those increases with alleged election rigging.
The numbers are real enough. The chronology, however, has a rather embarrassing problem.
The calendar strikes back
Haryana voted in October 2024. Maharashtra voted in November 2024. Delhi voted on February 5, 2025.
Gyanesh Kumar became CEC on February 19, 2025 – a full 14 days after Delhi voted, and several months after the Haryana and Maharashtra elections.
So the question in the graphic – how could he have influenced these elections as CEC before assuming that office? – almost answers itself. He couldn’t. The calendar refuses to cooperate with the theory.
In the panel, but not as CEC
There is, however, an important distinction worth making. Gyanesh Kumar was not a stranger to the poll panel during these elections. He had become an Election Commissioner in March 2024, under CEC Rajiv Kumar.
That means he was part of the three-member Election Commission when the Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi elections were conducted.
When an allegation rests on who held what constitutional office and when, dates are not decorative footnotes. They are the evidence.
Rise in vote share is not proof of rigging
The graphic says BJP’s vote share rose from about 36 per cent to 40 per cent in Haryana, from 25 per cent to 27 per cent in Maharashtra, and from 38 per cent to 45 per cent in Delhi.
Broadly, those comparisons correspond to the previous Assembly elections and the subsequent ones. Haryana’s BJP vote share went from 36.49 per cent in 2019 to about 39.94 per cent in 2024. In Maharashtra, it went from 25.75 per cent in 2019 to 26.18 per cent in 2024. In Delhi it went from 38.51 per cent in 2020 to 45.56 per cent in 2025.
Those are electoral facts. But a change in vote share is not, by itself, evidence of electoral manipulation. If it were, every party whose vote share increased between two elections would have to explain itself before a mathematical court of law.
And every party whose vote share declined could presumably file a complaint against the CEC.
From coincidence to conspiracy
This is where the argument becomes particularly entertaining. BJP’s vote share increased between two elections. Gyanesh Kumar was an Election Commissioner during those elections. Therefore, the increase proves rigging.
That is not evidence of causation. It is an association followed by a conclusion. Elections are rather more complicated creatures. Candidates change. Alliances change. Voters change. Issues change. Campaigns change. Turnout changes. Opponents change.
Constituencies can change politically even when their boundaries don’t. And sometimes, amazingly, voters themselves change their minds.
When the dates spoil the theory
There is nothing wrong with questioning the Election Commission. In a democracy, institutions should be open to scrutiny, and allegations should be examined when accompanied by evidence.
But the burden is rather higher than placing three percentages next to a bureaucrat’s photograph.
If the allegation is that an election was rigged, the obvious questions are: What was rigged? Who rigged it? How was it done? What evidence establishes it?
A rising vote share is an outcome. It is not a confession. And saying that a person influenced an election as CEC when he became CEC after the election was over requires a time machine.
For once, perhaps we should allow facts to matter – and let the calendar have the last word.
