The just-concluded winter session of Parliament—among the stormiest in recent years—produced little legislative work but plenty of political theatre. At the heart of the Opposition’s protests was the charge that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had allegedly deleted lakhs of voters in Bihar, a move they termed “vote chori.” The ruling side countered that the Opposition was spinning a baseless narrative against a constitutional body mandated to conduct free and fair elections.
The Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s right to revise but urged greater transparency, asking the poll body to publish the list of all deleted names.
The uproar was triggered by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s claim that nearly 64 lakh voters were arbitrarily removed from the rolls in Bihar. According to him, the mass deletion was aimed at helping the BJP-led NDA in the next round of elections. The Congress and its allies demanded an immediate discussion in Parliament, stalling both Houses repeatedly.
Gandhi accused the EC of acting in a partisan manner, alleging that disenfranchising voters under the guise of “cleansing” the rolls amounted to undermining democracy itself. Other Opposition leaders echoed his concerns, calling the voter revision drive a conspiracy to tilt the electoral playing field.
Interestingly, the Election Commission not only agreed to publish the list of deletions but also asked the Congress leader to submit an affidavit backing his claims, so it could respond formally.
The EC has maintained that it is simply carrying out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, an exercise well within its mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution. Officials clarified that the process involves:
- Removing names of deceased voters
- Eliminating duplicate or shifted entries
- Adding new voters who have turned 18
- Updating details to ensure accuracy
Such revisions are not new—the last major one was in 2003. Since then, only piecemeal updates have been possible due to legal, logistical, and political hurdles. This time, the Commission insists, the revision is essential to ensure credible elections and prevent any charge of bogus voting.
The Opposition relied heavily on data from the Centre for Development Studies (CDS), which claimed unusually high deletions in Bihar. But the credibility of this claim collapsed when CDS co-founder Sanjay Kumar admitted on television that the figures were incorrect and publicly apologised.
The retraction weakened the Opposition’s case, but by then, the political damage had been done. The narrative of “vote theft” had already dominated Parliament’s winter session.
The government side argued that the Opposition’s conduct was an attack on the authority of a constitutional body. Union ministers pointed out that the EC follows a meticulous process before every election, including:
- Consulting all political parties before announcing poll dates
- Providing parties with draft electoral rolls to flag errors
- Ensuring party representatives are present at polling stations during voting
- Allowing objections and disputes through defined legal mechanisms
If Congress or any other party had genuine concerns about the revision, ministers argued, they should have raised them during consultations or filed formal objections, rather than disrupt parliamentary proceedings.
The controversy raises two uncomfortable questions. First, did the Opposition prematurely pounce on flawed third-party data to build a political narrative against the NDA? And second, is the EC doing enough to reassure voters and parties that the roll revision is transparent, impartial, and error-free?
Critics argue that the EC should strengthen communication with stakeholders to avoid suspicion. Suggestions include establishing permanent regional EC units, improving real-time transparency of voter list updates, and creating stronger grievance redressal mechanisms.
The BJP also reminded the House that electoral malpractice and booth capturing were rampant during earlier Congress regimes, especially in the 1970s and 80s. For them, the “vote chor” tag sounded ironic when applied to the Election Commission, which has, over the years, been credited with strengthening India’s democratic framework.
The winter session may have ended without consensus, but the episode has once again highlighted how elections—the bedrock of Indian democracy—remain a deeply contested terrain. For the EC, its credibility is at stake; for the Opposition, voter disenfranchisement is a potent political weapon.
Ultimately, the question of who the real “vote chor” is will not be settled in Parliament’s well, but in the transparency of electoral processes—and in the trust of India’s 97 crore voters.
