Prashant Bhushan and Saket Gokhale slam ECI as a “dishonest stooge of the BJP” over fake voters, raising serious concerns amid the Supreme Court SIR hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI) and its handling of duplicate and fake voters has taken a sharp turn. The debate arose from a claim made by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who insisted that the Commission requires a “signed affidavit” from Opposition leaders to investigate discrepancies in electoral rolls.
Two prominent voices, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan and TMC MP Saket Gokhale, have accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) of misleading the public and deliberately avoiding scrutiny over duplicate and fake voters in electoral rolls.
“The ‘Privacy’ Excuse“: Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan
Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan exposed another excuse repeatedly used by the ECI, that the Supreme Court prohibited publishing machine-readable electoral rolls on privacy grounds.
This, he clarified, is completely false. The Supreme Court never issued such an order. It was the ECI itself that argued before the Court that releasing machine-readable lists would violate privacy. The Court never endorsed this reasoning, yet the ECI continues to use it as a shield.
Bhushan wrote,
“Absolute bunk! ECI argued in the SC that giving machine-readable list would violate privacy. SC didn’t endorse that absurd argument. ECI is a dishonest stooge of the BJP.”
Saket Gokhale: “ECI Is Lying About Affidavits”
Saket Gokhale, MP from the Trinamool Congress, accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of lying about legal requirements.
The CEC had recently claimed that the ECI needs a “signed affidavit” from Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi in order to investigate discrepancies in the voter list. Gokhale called this a blatant lie, pointing directly to Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
According to the law:
- The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) has the power to correct, transpose, or delete entries in the electoral roll.
- This can be done either on an application by a citizen or suo-motu (on his own motion) if the officer finds discrepancies.
- No affidavit from anyone is required.
Gokhale said,
“The ECI can SUO-MOTO examine & correct discrepancies in the electoral roll under Section 22 of the RPA, 1950. Why then is the CEC asking for affidavits? The ECI has zero intention of fixing the problem. This is intentional vote-rigging to help the BJP.”
ALSO READ: Bihar Draft Voter List 2025: 14 Days, Zero Objections from Political Parties, Reveals ECI
What the Law Says?
Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA, 1950) is explicit. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is empowered to correct, transpose, or delete any entry in the electoral roll if errors or discrepancies are found. This can be done:
- On application by any citizen, or
- On his own motion (suo-motu), if he is satisfied that the entry is erroneous, defective, or duplicated.
This means the ERO has independent powers to ensure accuracy in the voter list—without waiting for affidavits or complaints.
Key Clauses of Section 22:
- Correction: For any erroneous or defective entry.
- Transposition: If a voter shifts residence within the constituency.
- Deletion: If a voter is dead, has shifted permanently, or is not entitled to be registered.
- Duplicate Entries: If a person is registered in multiple constituencies or appears twice in the same roll.
The law even ensures due process by requiring that any voter facing deletion must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Case Title:
In Association for Democratic Reforms & Others v. Election Commission of India
W.P.(C) No. 640/2025
READ ORDER HERE