Five controversies headlining upcoming Bihar Assembly election
Each of these allegations has drawn a combative defence from the EC, which insists that its processes remain transparent, lawful, and politically neutral
The Election Commission of India (ECI) will announce the schedule for the Bihar assembly elections at 4 pm today, even as the poll body faces one of the most intense credibility tests in its history. In the months since chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took charge, the commission has been accused by opposition parties of large-scale voter deletions, curbing data access, withholding CCTV footage, and evading questions on the integrity of electronic voting machines (EVMs). Each of these allegations has drawn a combative defence from the EC, which insists that its processes remain transparent, lawful, and politically neutral.
This will be the first major electoral exercise since the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the first state poll under Kumar’s leadership. But what would typically be a routine pre-election announcement has now turned into a political flashpoint over institutional trust, as opposition leaders call the EC “compromised” and the commission accuses them of “eroding faith in democracy for partisan gain.”
Allegations over voter roll deletions
At the centre of the storm is Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls which has resulted in deletions of over 68 lakh names from the electoral roll—the first such exercise in over two decades. Opposition parties have alleged that the SIR has resulted in the deletion of lakhs of genuine voters, disproportionately impacting women, minorities, and migrant workers. Congress and RJD leaders have accused the EC of conducting a “purge” under the pretext of roll purification. During his Voter Adhikar Yatra, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi called it a “special package for Bihar” and “a new form of vote theft.”
EC’s response: The commission has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and defamatory,” insisting that the revision was essential to remove duplicate, deceased, and migrated entries. CEC Gyanesh Kumar has said the clean-up was overdue and that delaying it beyond elections would “damage the credibility of the rolls.” In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the EC stated that deletion from a draft roll does not mean permanent removal, and that detailed booth-level data was shared with all political parties. It accused petitioners of “constructing false narratives” to malign the institution.
EC’s affidavit demand and Rahul Gandhi’s response
The confrontation deepened when the EC demanded that Rahul Gandhi file a sworn affidavit within seven days substantiating his “vote chori” (vote theft) claims—or issue a public apology. CEC Gyanesh Kumar said that unsubstantiated political remarks could not be treated as legitimate complaints under the Representation of the People Act.
EC’s response: The commission said its demand for an affidavit was consistent with procedural law and necessary to ensure accountability in public discourse. It argued that false claims damage voter confidence and warned that continued misinformation could attract legal consequences.
The opposition reacted sharply and called the demand “absurd,” arguing that no precedent existed for compelling political leaders to file affidavits for electoral criticism. Gandhi countered that the EC should first file an affidavit affirming that its voter lists are error-free, adding that once the INDIA bloc comes to power, it would “take action against those who enabled vote theft.”
The ‘vote chori’ campaign and access to voter data
The “vote chori” narrative has evolved into a national campaign, with Congress alleging that the EC is deliberately restricting access to digital voter rolls in machine-readable formats, thereby preventing parties from verifying deletions and duplications. Gandhi has said the Congress plans to release a “white paper” on what it calls a “planned voter suppression effort” spanning multiple states.
EC’s response: The commission has called these accusations “politically motivated,” reiterating that all recognised parties receive electoral rolls in formats prescribed by law. It said privacy and data protection laws restrict it from releasing raw data that could enable profiling or misuse. “The Commission operates independently and is committed to maintaining the sanctity of elections,” it said.
EVM and CCTV controversies
The opposition has also renewed its long-standing doubts over the reliability of EVMs and transparency in vote counting. Parties including the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and the Left have alleged that the EC’s refusal to release raw EVM data, battery logs, and complete CCTV footage from counting centres prevents independent verification of results. They have questioned why CCTV footage from strong rooms and polling stations is deleted after 45 days, arguing that it limits post-election audits.
EC’s response: The commission has defended the use of EVMs, citing Supreme Court rulings that upheld their credibility and security. It said EVMs are standalone, non-networked machines that cannot be tampered with or hacked. Randomised testing and VVPAT (voter verifiable paper audit trail) verification, it said, are conducted in the presence of representatives from all political parties. On the CCTV issue, the EC said that recordings are retained as per law and cannot be publicly released without due process, as this could compromise ballot secrecy and polling station security. Kumar also cited privacy of voters, especially women voters, saying that the CCTV footage of women should not be made publicly available.
In a press briefing in August, CEC Gyanesh Kumar said the commission “will not be drawn into politically motivated speculation,” urging political parties to present concrete evidence of irregularities if they exist. “All parties have equal rights under the Model Code of Conduct,” he said, warning that constitutional institutions “should not be discredited for short-term political advantage.”
Supreme Court scrutiny and independence questions
The EC’s credibility is also being tested in court. The Supreme Court is hearing multiple petitions challenging both the SIR process and the recent law that altered the appointment process of election commissioners—replacing the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The opposition has called the amendment a “political capture of the EC,” alleging that it undermines institutional independence.
EC’s response: The commission maintains that it continues to function with complete autonomy and that its appointment process remains constitutionally sound. It has pointed to several transparency initiatives introduced under Gyanesh Kumar, including stakeholder consultations, EVM awareness drives, and expanded VVPAT training for polling officials.
Despite these efforts, opposition leaders have continued to demand judicial oversight of both EVM functioning and voter roll management. The EC insists that such oversight would amount to interference in an independent constitutional body’s functioning.
