Fixed Match or Fair Mandate? Rahul Gandhi's Allegations Put Election Commission Under Scanner

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has ignited a fresh political firestorm, accusing the Election Commission of India (ECI) of facilitating electoral manipulation. His latest charge—describing the destruction of election footage within 45 days as an attempt to “wipe evidence”—underscores deepening mistrust between the opposition and institutions meant to ensure free and fair elections. Gandhi’s assertion—“It is clear the match is fixed and a fixed election is poisonous for democracy”—is more than a political outcry; it raises critical questions about electoral integrity, institutional autonomy, and the erosion of democratic checks and balances in India.

The Election Commission, in its May 30 directive, instructed state chief electoral officers to destroy CCTV, webcast, and video footage of the polling process within 45 days unless required by courts in a legal proceeding. This marked a stark shift from previous practices. On September 6, 2024, the ECI had itself recommended storing such footage for at least a year. This sudden reversal—accompanied by the justification that footage was being misused on social media “by non-contestants for malicious narratives”—has sparked concerns among political parties and civil society watchdogs alike. Critics argue that if transparency invites “misuse,” then institutions must improve public awareness and fact-checking, not reduce transparency.

Rahul Gandhi’s allegation that those “supposed to answer are themselves wiping evidence” is not an isolated jibe. It is part of a sustained critique that began in the aftermath of the 2024 general elections and intensified following the Congress’ electoral collapse in the Maharashtra Assembly polls later that year. In an opinion piece published earlier this month, Gandhi referred to the Maharashtra elections as a “fixed match involving industrial-scale rigging,” pointing directly to the subversion of the Election Commission as a facilitator of this manipulation. The use of terms like “industrial scale” and “institutional capture” suggests that Gandhi views the issue not as a set of isolated irregularities but as part of a systemic democratic backslide.

At the heart of Gandhi’s charge is the voter registration data from Maharashtra. He cites a curious trend: from 2019 to May 2024, the number of registered voters increased modestly from 8.98 crore to 9.29 crore—a growth of 31 lakh over five years. However, in just five months between May and November 2024, the voter roll reportedly expanded by an astonishing 41 lakh, reaching 9.70 crore—even exceeding the state’s adult population of 9.54 crore as per government estimates. Gandhi has demanded that the EC provide a detailed voter roll of Maharashtra for the periods before the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to clarify these discrepancies. In the absence of transparent, machine-readable electoral rolls—which the EC has not provided—his demands gain more traction.

The EC has dismissed Gandhi’s statements as “absurd” and an “affront to the rule of law.” But such rebuttals, without data disclosure or counter-evidence, only deepen skepticism. If the voter roll inflation is indeed due to legitimate and verifiable reasons—such as delayed addition of youth voters, returning migrants, or administrative clean-ups—then the EC should be eager to publish those breakdowns. The opacity invites suspicion, and the refusal to release granular electoral data in an analyzable format undermines the Commission’s credibility.

Moreover, Rahul Gandhi’s concerns come at a time when the Modi government has amended the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, shielding certain election-related documents from public scrutiny. This legal veil around election data coincides with rising political centralization and the weakening of autonomous institutions, from the EC to investigative agencies. Democratic experts argue that electoral transparency must increase with the complexity of elections—especially in a digital era where voter data, booth-wise turnout, and polling video footage are integral to public trust.

[6/21, 11:24 PM] Amit Singh: What makes Gandhi’s alarm resonate beyond his party’s base is the broader democratic context. Independent reports have flagged worrying signs: from the declining independence of the EC to inconsistent voter roll practices and the opacity in EVM-VVPAT verification. The Supreme Court itself, in 2023, asked probing questions about the EC’s appointment process, though ultimately ruling that it should be reformed through a committee mechanism. Yet, months later, the government reinstated a system giving itself dominant power in EC appointments—ignoring the spirit of judicial recommendations.

The EC’s rationale for early destruction of video footage—that it is being used to spread misinformation—is deeply problematic. In a democracy, the answer to misinformation is not deletion but clarification, rebuttal, and public fact-checking. By choosing to eliminate primary evidence, the EC appears to be prioritizing institutional shielding over public accountability. It also raises legal and ethical questions: what if a candidate uncovers booth capture or voter intimidation weeks after polling? Should evidence be destroyed before redressal is even sought?

It is not just the Congress raising these alarms. Civil liberties organizations, retired bureaucrats, and legal scholars have echoed similar apprehensions about the dilution of transparency and the centralization of electoral oversight. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a challenge to the amended election rules that reduce public access to election-related documents. The outcome of that case could significantly affect how the EC is perceived—either as an independent arbiter of India’s democracy or as a procedural organ under executive control.

Rahul Gandhi’s language may be provocative—“match-fixing,” “fixed election,” “poisonous for democracy”—but beneath the polemic lies a substantive and urgent question: if elections are the cornerstone of democracy, then who guards the integrity of the process? The erosion of trust in election data, when combined with reduced transparency, creates a recipe not just for political disillusionment but for systemic democratic decay. Democracy does not collapse in a day; it frays gradually when institutions entrusted with fairness are perceived as partisan. The onus now lies on the Election Commission to restore public confidence—not by rebuttal alone, but through demonstrable transparency, open data, and a renewed commitment to serve the people, not power.