The short answer is no. The dismantling of the integrity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) started when the Modi Sarkar moved a bill – the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Other Election Commissioners, (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to replace the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet minister, nominated by the prime minister, in the three-member selection committee appointing the CEC and Election Commissions.This Bill was passed into Act by Lok Sabha on December 23, 2023 and, within a week, the President assented to it. That was the beginning of the rot and, surprisingly, then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was directly affected by this exclusionary order, did not take up the matter when its constitutionality was immediately challenged.The first CEC appointed by this new selection committee was Gyanesh Kumar in February 2025 who, as we have seen in his press conferences rebutting the arguments of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on the allegations of ‘vote chori’, has behaved more like a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson than a constitutional functionary sworn to observe independence and impartiality.Most of the revelations of the ECI’s irregularities have come from three press conferences Rahul Gandhi held on August 7, September 28 and November 5, and 10 questions Yogendra Yadav raised on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) carried out by the ECI just two months prior to the Bihar Assembly elections. Here is a brief summary of their key arguments.Discussing the irregularities in Mahadevapura, in Bangalore, Gandhi made five crucial points. 1. 11,965 cases of duplicate voters; 2. 40,009 cases of fake addresses; 3. 10,452 cases of bulk voters registered from single addresses, 4. 4,132 invalid photos and, lastly, 5. 33,692 cases of the misuse of Form 6, designed for first time voters, but using which many older people – some over 90 have used to enrol themselves.Rahul Gandhi at a press conference explaining the wide-ranging deficiencies in the electoral data related to the Haryana Assembly election, 2024. Photo: PTIThe conclusion was that the BJP, which trailed in the seven assembly segments of Bangalore Central, won the Mahadevapura Lok Sabha constituency because of 1,00,570 fake voters.Similarly, Gandhi alleged large-scale voter fraud in the Haryana Assembly elections and accused the Election Commission of colluding with the BJP to manipulate electoral rolls and demanded accountability.Key allegations from the ‘H Files’ press conferenceMassive voter fraud: 12.5% of Haryana’s electorate – about 25 lakh votes, 1 in every 8 votes – were fake or manipulated.Duplicate and fake entries: Evidence of duplicate voter photos, cross-state voter registrations, and even fake identities, including one voter ID allegedly using a Brazilian model’s photo.Electoral impact: Congress reportedly lost eight seats by just 22,000 votes and 1.18 lakh votes overall, suggesting that fraudulent votes may have swung the results.Systematic manipulation: Gandhi accused the ECI of shielding those responsible and claimed the manipulation was systematic and deliberate, not accidental. Patterns and mechanismsCentralised digital tampering: Haryana and Karnataka cases suggest use of data centres or software to manipulate rolls.Targeted disenfranchisement: Karnataka’s deletions focused on minorities and backward castes, raising concerns of caste-based voter suppression.Cross-party accusations: Both BJP and Congress have accused each other of manipulation, depending on the state.Election Commission under scrutiny: In all cases, the Election Commission has faced criticism for either inaction or lack of transparency. And the ECI has failed to respond satisfactorily to any of the charges but has instead repeatedly demanded that Gandhi file an affidavit or should have made the complaints within the time-frame suggested in The Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951.Political activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav had raised 10 pointed questions challenging the transparency, legality and intent behind the ECI’s SIR in Bihar. He alleged that the process was a mass disenfranchisement campaign targeting marginalised communities.Key questions raised by Yogendra YadavWhat safeguards exist against mass voter deletions? He demanded clarity on how the ECI is preventing wrongful deletions, especially among vulnerable populations.Why were deletions prioritised over additions? The process, he claimed, focused more on removing names than enrolling new voters, which skewed democratic participation.Why were field verifications outsourced to private agencies? He raised concerns about data privacy and accountability when non-government actors were allowed to handle sensitive voter data.What is the demographic profile of the deleted voters? He alleged that Dalits, Muslims and the economically weaker sections were disproportionately affected during the deletions, and demanded data to verify or refute this.Though the Supreme Court agreed to monitor the process, it did not stay the exercise. Upon Yadav’s petition, the court suggested that both Aadhaar cards and voter IDs be accepted for re-verification.Stark contrastsBihar’s case is pre-emptive and systemic, involving a state-wide revision with opaque criteria.Karnataka’s case was reactive and localised, triggered by forged deletion forms discovered in specific districts.Bihar’s controversy centred on legal and procedural legitimacy, while Karnataka’s focused on criminal tampering and caste targeting.What both cases revealVulnerabilities in India’s voter-roll management system.The need for transparent audit trails, independent oversight and legal safeguards.The politicisation of voter verification as a tool for electoral engineering.Social scientist and political activist Yogendra Yadav at a seminar on ‘SIR (Special Intensive Revision): Bihar and Bengal’, at Indian Association, in Kolkata. Photo: PTIHere’s a detailed breakdown of the impact:The SIR in Bihar led to a reduction of approximately 15,000-20,000 voters per constituency, shrinking the total electorate from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore across Bihar’s 243 Assembly seats.91 constituencies saw a change in party control between the 2020 and 2025 elections.In 11 seats, the number of voters deleted during SIR exceeded the winning margin, suggesting a potential influence on outcomes.In 91 seats, the BJP and its allies, including the Janata Dal (United), won 75 seats, making major gains in Opposition strongholds. Meanwhile, the Mahagathabandhan led by the Rashtriya Janata Dal won only 15 seats with significant losses in 71 seats that it held in 2020.Implications for electoral integrityThey raise questions about the robustness of Form 7 (used for deletions), duplicate detection software, and cross-state coordination.The politicisation of the Election Commission seriously undermines public trust unless reforms and transparency measures are adopted.The nail in the coffinThe findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the government of Karnataka reveal shocking details of the fraud allegedly committed by the BJP legislator Subhash Guttedar, who was charge-sheeted on December 12 in Bengaluru, in the Aland voters irregularities scam.The SIT found that the modus operandi in the attempt to delete names of genuine voters from the rolls without their knowledge has used the loopholes in ECI’s National Voter’s Service Portal (NVSP). The SIT report says:“Any mobile number and the OTP sent to that number could be used to create an account in NVSP and for subsequent log-ins, only password was needed and no OTP was needed to be sent again. The BJP MLA hired the services of a call-centre like firm in Kalaburgi, run by one Akram Pasha, to target and delete voters who were likely to vote for his rival.“He bought mobile numbers and OTPs sent to these numbers from West Bengal-based Bapi Adya who ran a website called ‘OTP Bazar’. This had a tie-up with a US-based website called ‘SMS Activate’. The website would randomly provide a mobile number, using which transactions could be made and would provide the OTP sent to that number for a price. It is suspected that this website may have helped others with digital impersonation and identity theft and in other cybercrimes.”Though the ECI has clarified that it has now introduced an e-verification system and double authentication on NVSP, it was done after Gandhi’s press conference – and it has not yet shared the key data sought by the investigators in Karnataka.On the whole, the systemic loopholes cast serious doubts on our electoral process. And the ECI refuses to be transparent and accountable to the people, making it suspect in the minds of voters.Ravi Joshi retired as a Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat.