LEGALITY PROVISIONS SURROUNDING RAHUL GANDHI’S FRAUD VOTING CLAIMS 

INTRODUCTION

The 2024 general elections have sparked intense political and legal debate, following serious allegations made by opposition leader Rahul Gandhi. He has accused the Election Commission of India of permitting large-scale voter fraud, particularly in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of the Bangalore Lok Sabha constituency, where over 1 lakh fake votes were allegedly cast. With a margin of just 32,707 votes in the constituency and major discrepancies in voter rolls, Gandhi claims the seat and possibly the entire outcome was compromised. This article examines the legal and constitutional dimensions of the controversy, focusing on relevant rules, forms, and judicial limitations central to the case.

THE ACTUAL MATTER 

ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MR. RAHUL GANDHI IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE

Recently, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi held a press conference in which he made serious allegations regarding the integrity of the 2024 general elections. He claimed that his party had reasonable certainty that over 1 lakh fake voters were included in the voter rolls.

Gandhi criticized the Election Commission, stating that it refused to provide electronic voter data, forcing his team to work with physical copies instead. According to him, the physical documents provided were non-machine readable and deliberately designed to prevent Optical Character Recognition (OCR). This meant the data could not be digitized or analysed efficiently an issue he found particularly concerning in a technologically advanced time like 2024.

Citing specific figures, he noted that in Bangalore constituency:

• Total votes polled for Congress: 6,26,208
• Total votes polled for BJP: 6,58,915
• Margin of victory: 32,707 votes

He further highlighted the Mahadevapura assembly segment:

• Congress votes: 1,15,586
• BJP votes: 2,29,632
• Margin: 1,14,046 votes

Gandhi asserted that this seat effectively secured BJP’s overall victory, underscoring the importance of investigating alleged voter fraud.

Rahul Gandhi Alleges Massive Voter Fraud in Mahadevapura Assembly, Claims Over 1 Lakh Fake Votes in 2024 Elections

In the press conference Mr. Rahul Gandhi, specifically highlighting Mahadevapura Assembly constituency as a major area of concern. According to him, 1,00,250 votes were fraudulently cast through five distinct methods. He presented supporting evidence and claimed that these discrepancies had a direct impact on the election outcome.

Breakdown of Alleged Fraudulent Votes:

1. DUPLICATE VOTERS (11,965 VOTES) – Gandhi claimed that several individuals voted multiple times across different constituencies. He presented a list identifying numerous duplicate voter entries, where the same person was registered in more than one location.
2. FAKE AND INVALID ADDRESSES (40,009 VOTES) – A significant number of voter entries were registered with non-existent or unverifiable addresses. Many entries listed “House No. 0” or used gibberish in place of the father’s name for example, “DFOIGAIDF” as one of the voter’s father name. According to Gandhi, these were clear indicators of fraudulent registrations.
3. BULK VOTERS AT A SINGLE ADDRESS (10,452 VOTES) – Several addresses had unrealistically high numbers of registered voters. For instance:
4. At House No. 35 – 80 voters were registered despite it being a single-room house.
5. At Booth No. 366 – 46 voters were listed as residents of one small house, yet none were found to be living there during verification.

4. INVALID OR UNUSABLE PHOTOS (4,132 VOTES) – Many voter entries either had no photograph or contained photos that were so small or unclear that identification was impossible. This, Gandhi argued, enabled impersonation and fraudulent voting.
5. MISUSE OF FORM 6 (33,692 VOTES) – Gandhi accused the authorities of manipulating the new voter list using Form 6. Examples included:
6. New voters listed as being 70 years, 95years, or even 98 years old, raising questions about their sudden registration.
7. Cases of duplicate registrations, such as a woman named Shakun Rani, who appeared twice in the voter list, once on 13/09/23 and again on 31/10/23 and allegedly voted twice.

Rahul Gandhi contended that this large-scale manipulation in Mahadevapura, with a margin of over 1 lakh votes, was pivotal in BJP’s overall victory. He criticized the Election Commission for not providing electronic voter data, forcing the opposition to manually analyse non-machine-readable physical copies, further complicating their ability to detect fraud in a timely manner.

These major issues were raised by Mr. Rahul Gandhi, who claimed that the Bangalore Lok Sabha seat was effectively stolen through large-scale electoral fraud. He pointed out that the winning margin was just 33,000 votes, while over 1,00,000 suspicious or fake votes were identified in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment alone a key part of the Bangalore constituency.

He accused the Commission of failing in its constitutional duty by not providing electronic voter data and by allowing serious irregularities to persist unchecked.

ELECTION COMMISSION RESPONSE ON THIS MATTER 

The Election Commission did not provide any specific clarification on the matter. Instead, it asked Mr. Rahul Gandhi to sign an oath affirming that his claims are true. The oath is required under Section 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Here is the tweet: 

THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THIS WHOLE MATTER

The political debate surrounding this issue is unfolding at a very high level, but it also raises several important legal questions. Key aspects that have come into focus include the use of Form 6, provisions under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, relevant constitutional provisions, and consequences of signing an oath. Let’s explore these legal dimensions one by one.

1) WHAT IS FORM 6

Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 6 is used by Indian citizens aged 18 and above to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll, either as first-time voters or when shifting to a new constituency. It does not require documentary proof of citizenship, a self-declaration of age, residence, and citizenship, along with supporting documents for age and address, is sufficient. Registration can be done online via the NVSP portal or offline through designated electoral officers. Visit The Portal Here: Voters’ Services Portal

2) PROVISIONS OF REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS RULES, 1960

The major provision highlighted in the present case is Section 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. In addition to this, other relevant provisions that warrant discussion include Sections 12, 17, and 18. These sections are central to understanding the legal framework governing how claims and objections will be addressed.

• Section 12 – as per this section the period for lodging claims and objections is generally thirty days from the date of publication of the roll, unless specifically extended by the ECI
• Section 17 – if the claim or objection is not lodged within the time period, shall be rejected by the registration officer.
• Section 18– if the registration officer is satisfied that the claims are valid then he may allow it without further inquiry.
• SECTION 20(3)(B)- this section in question in the particular matter, it states that “The registration officer may in his discretion require that , (b) the evidence tendered by any person shall be given on oath and administer an oath for the purpose”.

These sections collectively outline the procedure for addressing voter list irregularities, which are at the core of Rahul Gandhi’s allegations.

3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Then comes our constitution, the law that provides election commission the power to conduct and supervise the election process.

• Article 324– Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission – This article deals with the formation of the Election Commission, including provisions related to the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, their tenure, conditions of service, and the powers and functions assigned to the Commission under the Constitution of India. It lays the foundation for the Election Commission’s role as an independent constitutional authority responsible for conducting free and fair elections across the country.
• Article 329– Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters – this article bars judicial review of election validity by courts concerning both parliamentary and state legislative elections, this bar is not absolute but subject to the limitations of exception. Article 329(a) of Indian Constitution shields laws formulated under Articles 327 and 328 from judicial questioning. Furthermore, Article 329(b) of Indian Constitution explicitly mandates that any challenge to an election must adhere to a prescribed process, primarily through an “election petition.” 

CONSEQUENCES OF SIGNING THE OATH

If Mr. Rahul signs the oath under Section 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, he may face legal consequences if his allegations turn out to be false. The oath template given to Gandhi requires him to declare: “I am aware that making a false declaration in connection with electoral rolls is punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950. I also understand that giving false evidence is punishable under Sections 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

• Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, deals with the offence of making false declarations. It prescribes a punishment of up to one year of imprisonment, a fine, or both, for any person who knowingly makes a false written statement or one they believe to be false or do not believe to be true in connection with the preparation, revision, or correction of an electoral roll, or regarding the inclusion or exclusion of any entry.
• Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines “giving false evidence” as making a false statement when a person is legally bound by an oath to state the truth or bound by law to make a declaration.
• Section 229 of BNS says that anybody who gives false evidence can be punished with a jail term of up to three years, along with a fine of up to Rs 5,000.

HOW THIS MATTER AFFECTS DEMOCRACY

The allegations raised by Rahul Gandhi, combined with the Election Commission’s response, strike at the very core of India’s democratic framework. At the heart of any democracy lies the principle of free, fair, and transparent electionsa system where every vote counts and electoral processes are above suspicion. Claims of over 1 lakh fake or fraudulent votes, particularly in a closely contested seat like Bangalore, cast a serious shadow over the legitimacy of the electoral outcome.

When voter rolls are allegedly manipulated, and when institutions responsible for safeguarding the electoral process appear unresponsive or opaque, public trust is eroded. The refusal to provide electronic, machine-readable voter data despite the availability of advanced technology raises concerns about transparency and accountability. This not only affects political parties but also weakens citizens’ faith in the electoral system, potentially leading to voter apathy and disillusionment with democratic institutions.

Moreover, invoking legal provisions like Section 20(3)(b) to demand an oath from a complainant, without simultaneously committing to a transparent investigation, may be seen as a move that deflects responsibility rather than ensuring electoral integrity.

In a democracy, institutions like the Election Commission must be perceived as neutral and proactive watchdogs, not as gatekeepers of procedure alone. Without timely corrective action and openness to scrutiny, such controversies risk damaging the credibility of elections, which is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

CONCLUSION 

The allegations raised by Rahul Gandhi in the aftermath of the 2024 general elections highlight deep concerns about the integrity and transparency of the electoral process. If proven, the presence of over 1 lakh questionable votes in a constituency with a narrow winning margin raises serious questions about the functioning of the Election Commission and the safeguards in place to ensure free and fair elections.

While the legal framework including the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and constitutional provisions like Articles 324 and 329 provides mechanisms to address electoral irregularities, the effectiveness of these provisions depends on timely enforcement, transparency, and institutional accountability.

The Election Commission’s role is not only to conduct elections but to inspire public confidence in the process. In the absence of prompt, thorough, and unbiased investigations into such claims, the foundation of democracy free and fair elections risks being weakened. Moving forward, it is essential that all electoral stakeholders, including the Commission, political parties, and the judiciary, work collaboratively to ensure electoral integrity and restore trust in democratic governance.

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/captain-cool-trademark/