THE ELECTION COMMISSION has asked Rahul Gandhi to submit an affidavit to substantiate his allegations regarding the manipulation of electoral rolls. This demand has no legal basis. There is no provision in The Representation of the People Act, 1950, nor in any other law that compels a citizen to file an affidavit to the EC in support of a claim about electoral irregularities.
The process of preparing the electoral roll is laid down with precision in the law. First, a draft roll is published. Then, objections and claims are invited from the public. The EC examines these objections, makes corrections if necessary, and then publishes the final roll. This entire process is governed by timelines—generally 30 days for filing objections, though the EC can extend that period.
Once the final roll is published, no further objections can be entertained until the next round of revision. Elections are conducted on the basis of the final list, and any challenge to that list after the election is ordinarily outside the scope of the statutory process.
In this case, the leader of opposition has alleged that the poll body had “stolen” votes “in collusion with” the BJP in Karnataka’s Mahadevapura assembly segment—under the Bangalore Central parliamentary constituency—in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The elections were more than a year ago and the voter list had gone through the statutory process and was finalised before the polls.
But Gandhi raising the issue now brings us to a different legal question—what recourse exists when allegations about faulty or manipulated rolls emerge much later? The law does not provide for objections after the electoral process is over, but that does not mean the EC can wash its hands of the matter.
Article 324 of the Constitution is unambiguous—it is the duty of the EC to prepare the electoral rolls and conduct free and fair elections. If credible allegations surface, the EC has the authority and the obligation to act, even suo motu. An inaccurate or manipulated roll strikes at the very foundation of electoral legitimacy.
It has been reported that a group of citizens has conducted a sample study and produced findings that point to serious irregularities. If the allegations are based on verifiable evidence, the EC must respond by initiating a transparent investigation. This is not because a political leader demands it, but because the people of India are entitled to assurance that the elections they participate in are free, fair and above manipulation.
Section 31 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950, does provide for punishment if false information is furnished in connection with the preparation or revision of the rolls. But the provision applies to wilfully false information, not to the raising of allegations or suspicions. Demanding an affidavit from Gandhi under threat of Section 31 is, therefore, without legal foundation. He is under no statutory or constitutional obligation to make any statement on oath before the EC.
The correct approach for the EC would be to engage with the substance of the allegations. If the allegations are unfounded, it can publicly refute them with facts. If there is any merit in them, it must take remedial action, even if this means revisiting procedures or ordering an independent audit.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, taken suo motu cognisance of media reports to address issues of public importance. There is no reason the EC cannot do the same in matters affecting the sanctity of the electoral process.
The EC is not just another administrative body; it is a constitutional authority vested with the responsibility of safeguarding democracy itself. Its credibility rests on the confidence that every eligible citizen is on the rolls, every ineligible name is off it, and no manipulation can tilt the playing field. Demanding affidavits from political leaders may create the appearance of action, but it does not discharge the EC’s constitutional responsibility.
The writer is former secretary general of the Lok Sabha.
As told to Kanu Sarda