The Election Commission of India (ECI), once hailed as the world’s most powerful guardian of democracy, now faces a growing crisis of credibility. The fresh allegations of 'vote chori' and manipulation of electoral rolls have again raised questions about whether the Commission’s internal mechanisms to investigate such claims are robust or merely procedural.
Every time the allegations of electoral malpractice arise, be it missing names on voter lists, malfunctioning of EVMs, or manipulation of voter databases, the poll panel issues statements, orders enquiries, and cites its internal safeguards.
The Congress has accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of orchestrating a large-scale 'vote chori' in the 2024 Haryana Assembly elections, claiming around 25 lakh bogus votes were cast. They included 5.2 lakh duplicate entries, 93,000 invalid addresses and 19.26 lakh bulk voters, said Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
The Opposition party has said it will press for an independent investigation, while the Election Commission and the BJP have rejected the claims as unfounded.
How the Election Commission investigates itself
The EC’s standard response to a complaint begins with an internal fact-finding exercise. Reports are sought from Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) in the states concerned and from District Election Officers (DEOs) on the ground. If discrepancies are found, the matter may be referred to the technical division of the Commission or to the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL)—the two public sector units that manufacture Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
There is no statutory provision mandating an external or judicial review of alleged electoral irregularities. Nor is there an independent audit body with authority to access voter databases or the source code of EVMs.
The trust deficit
Public faith in the Election Commission has traditionally rested on its perceived impartiality. But with political parties increasingly accusing it of bias and opacity, the trust deficit is widening. The Commission often invokes the constitutional guarantee of independence under Article 324, yet that independence must be matched by transparency.
In 2019 and 2024, the EC faced similar allegations, from missing names in electoral rolls to reports of duplicate voter IDs. While the Commission ordered verification drives and dismissed claims of tampering, it rarely made detailed findings public.
Need for institutional reform
Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has repeatedly suggested that the Election Commission create a permanent, independent technical oversight committee to audit EVMs, voter data, and complaints related to electoral integrity.
Legal experts also point to the absence of any clear appellate mechanism. Complaints about electoral misconduct are usually filed before the EC, but if the complainant is dissatisfied, there is no statutory appeal except moving the courts. In practice, this means long delays and procedural hurdles.
A call for transparency
Ultimately, the question is not only about technical safeguards but also about perception. With elections becoming more contested and polarised, even the hint of bias or concealment can erode legitimacy.
The EC’s internal systems, its control room monitoring, randomisation of polling staff, and layered verification of EVMs are sound in design. But without independent validation and full public disclosure of findings, their credibility remains in question.
As the new allegations of vote chori intensify, the Commission stands at a crossroads; it can either rely on its closed internal probes or open its processes to public scrutiny. The latter might invite criticism, but it could also restore the one thing the EC needs the most today—the people’s trust.