Editorial: Rahul's 'proof' of election fraud

CHENNAI: The leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made some startling claims regarding large-scale discrepancies in the electoral rolls in one assembly segment of a Lok Sabha constituency in Bengaluru, where the party lost despite faring well in other assembly segments. The Congress leader attributed the loss to the inclusion of over a lakh votes that were not genuine. Describing it as a “huge criminal fraud” and “a crime against the Constitution”, he alleged collusion between the Election Commission of India and the party in power (Bharatiya Janata Party).

At a news conference, the Congress leader made an elaborate PowerPoint presentation, which he said was based on the data furnished by the ECI, and further expressed suspicion that this modus operandi was possibly being used in many other assembly and parliamentary constituencies.

Taking recourse to procedural technicalities, the ECI has sought from Rahul Gandhi an affidavit under oath. Some legal experts argued that the rule under which the poll body is making the demand is infructuous or not applicable in the present case. Even if it were to be applicable, this kind of bureaucratic response does not befit a Constitutional body responsible for holding free and fair elections.

Despite repeated requests, the ECI refuses to share with political parties the soft copies of electoral rolls and the CCTV videos for scrutiny. Moreover, it has even ordered the destruction of CCTV footage after 45 days of polling. Interestingly, the ECI directive was issued a fortnight after a high court ordered the release of election papers and videography relating to Haryana assembly elections, wherein victory margins were slim and the outcome had upset calculations and opinion polls. Similar things happened with regard to the Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh assembly elections.

The Congress party has been suspicious about the integrity of elections and ECI, but officially has been guarded about it. However, after patiently biding time for the opportune moment and subsequent meticulous research, it has presented an “evidence-based” case which many would find it hard to refute its claims that votes are being stolen and elections are being rigged and accused ECI of actively colluding with the ruling party.

Elections are all about political contestations, and, in a parliamentary democracy, free and fair elections enable voters to express their choice. Elections and politics are therefore interlinked, but the Constitutional arrangement is such that the ECI, though appointed by the political executive, was expected to rise above partisan politics and act impartially. However, in recent years, the governance style of the ruling party has lent weight to claims that the ECI was biased. That some of the ECI decisions could be construed as favouring the ruling party has willy-nilly played a role in shaping the perception of bias.

The phrase 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion' may seem like an old cliché, but it is still relevant when it comes to people in power and institutions of democratic governance. Irrespective of the circumstances and the dramatis personae involved, it behoves the ECI as a Constitutional entity to go the extra mile to dispel even a shred of doubt about its propriety, independence and fairness. And, in the present instance, trying to brazen it out will be counterproductive.