The Election Commission of India (ECI) has once again urged Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to submit his allegations of voter roll manipulation in a Karnataka Assembly constituency under oath. This comes after Gandhi claimed that over one lakh fake votes were created in the Mahadevapura Assembly seat in Bengaluru to benefit the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Allegations Made by Rahul Gandhi

At a press conference on Thursday, Rahul Gandhi alleged that 1,00,250 fake votes were added in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency. The seat falls under the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency. According to him, the voter roll manipulation was aimed at ensuring a BJP victory.

Gandhi’s claim is part of a broader political attack on the ruling party, accusing it of undermining democratic processes. His remarks have sparked heated political debate and prompted an official response from the Election Commission.

ECI’s Demand for Evidence Under Oath

Following his statement, the Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer issued a letter to Gandhi. The letter cited Rule 20 (3) (b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and asked him to provide evidence under oath.

The rule states that a registration officer may conduct a summary inquiry into claims or objections. It allows the officer to require any person to appear in person, give evidence on oath, and administer such oath for the purpose.

ECI’s Position and Warning

Sources in the Election Commission have indicated that Rahul Gandhi must either submit a sworn declaration or apologise to the nation. The Commission stressed that unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud could harm public trust in the electoral process.

ECI officials argue that allegations involving electoral integrity require concrete proof and must follow legal procedures. The emphasis on an oath is meant to formalise the submission and hold the claimant accountable for the accuracy of the allegations.

Expert Opinions on Rule Applicability

Some electoral law experts have questioned whether Rule 20 (3) (b) applies in this situation. They note that the provision typically applies when a claim or objection is filed within 30 days of the electoral rolls being published.

In this case, Gandhi’s allegations appear to be made outside that time frame, which may make the rule procedurally irrelevant. However, the ECI has not publicly commented on this interpretation.

Political Reactions to the Allegations

Rahul Gandhi’s remarks have triggered strong responses from the BJP. Party leaders have accused him of making “baseless” allegations and engaging in “selective outrage” against the Election Commission. They argue that his statements are aimed at discrediting the electoral process without providing verifiable proof.

BJP spokespersons have called on Gandhi to produce evidence instead of making what they describe as politically motivated accusations. The party insists that the electoral process in Karnataka was conducted transparently.

Context of the Mahadevapura Assembly Seat

Mahadevapura is a key Assembly segment in Bengaluru, known for its large and diverse voter base. The seat holds strategic importance for both the BJP and Congress due to its urban demographics and political significance within Bangalore Central.

Winning this seat often has broader implications for Lok Sabha election outcomes in the region. This makes Gandhi’s allegation of 1,00,250 fake votes a matter of significant political interest and controversy.

Broader Pattern of Election Disputes

This is not the first time Rahul Gandhi has questioned the integrity of elections. In previous statements, he has alleged irregularities in voter rolls and EVM functioning. Each time, the ECI has either dismissed the claims as unsubstantiated or requested formal evidence.

Similarly, the BJP has countered by accusing the Congress of attempting to undermine faith in democratic institutions. Such exchanges have become a recurring feature of the political rivalry between the two parties.

Legal Implications of Filing Under Oath

Filing an allegation under oath carries legal consequences. If the claims are proven false, the person making them could face penalties, including charges of perjury. This is one reason why the ECI’s insistence on an oath may act as a deterrent against unfounded accusations.

On the other hand, if Gandhi submits his claims under oath with supporting evidence, the ECI would be compelled to investigate the matter formally. This could lead to a detailed inquiry into the voter rolls of the Mahadevapura constituency.

Public Perception and Electoral Trust

The controversy has once again brought attention to the importance of voter roll accuracy in maintaining public confidence in elections. Allegations of large-scale voter fraud can erode trust in the electoral process, regardless of their veracity.

The ECI, as the custodian of free and fair elections, faces the challenge of addressing such claims swiftly and transparently. Failure to do so risks giving space to misinformation and political polarisation.

Next Steps in the Dispute

If Rahul Gandhi complies with the ECI’s request and files his allegations under oath, the Commission will have to decide whether to initiate a formal investigation. If he refuses or fails to provide evidence, the political narrative will likely shift toward whether his claims were credible.

For now, the ball is in Gandhi’s court. His response will determine whether this issue escalates into a legal battle or fades as a political talking point.

The ECI’s demand for a sworn statement from Rahul Gandhi underscores the seriousness of allegations involving electoral integrity. The dispute over the Mahadevapura voter rolls is more than a local political spat; it touches on fundamental questions of democracy, transparency, and public trust.

As both the Congress and BJP trade accusations, the public awaits either concrete evidence or a formal closure to the matter. In the meantime, the episode serves as a reminder of the need for robust electoral safeguards and responsible political discourse in India’s democracy.