Listen To This Post

New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Thursday launched a blistering attack on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of shielding “a centralised criminal operation” that systematically deleted voters’ names to tilt elections. Speaking at a press conference, Gandhi presented specific examples from Karnataka and demanded technical records that he says will reveal the origin and scale of the alleged manipulation.

Gandhi framed the deletions as a deliberate, nationwide pattern aimed at marginalised communities — Dalits, Adivasis, minorities and OBCs — and said the goal was to reduce opposition votes in state after state. “This is not a one-off clerical error. It is a systematic targeting,” he told reporters, calling the alleged scheme a new kind of electoral fraud.

Gandhi cited a Karnataka CID investigation that, he said, has already produced an FIR. He claimed the CID had formally sought detailed technical logs from the Election Commission — including destination IP addresses, device ports and OTP trails — 18 separate times over an 18-month period, but the poll panel had not handed over the material. “Why are they not giving this? Because this will lead directly to the spot from where the operation is being run,” he alleged.

How the deletions were allegedly carried out — cases cited

Gandhi described a modus operandi that, he said, relied on automated tools and impersonation:

• In Aland (Karnataka) in 2023, he said 6,018 deletion applications were filed through impersonation and automated systems; the anomaly surfaced only when a booth-level officer noticed her uncle’s name missing and probed further.

• He cited the case of 63-year-old Godabai, in whose name a fake login was allegedly created to delete 12 voters; Gandhi said that mobile numbers used to generate OTPs belonged to numbers outside Karnataka.

• In another example, a man named Suryakaant discovered that 12 deletions had been filed in his name within 14 minutes; one of those struck-off voters, Babita, later told investigators she had not authorized anything.

• A third cited instance involved two deletions in the name of Naagraj filed within 36 seconds at 4 a.m., which Gandhi argued was humanly impossible without automated systems.

Gandhi said the pattern was not random: “The top 10 booths with maximum deletions were Congress strongholds; we had won eight of them in 2018. This was not a coincidence — it was a planned operation.”

Pointing to what he described as the EC’s inaction on handing over logs, Gandhi directly accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of protecting the perpetrators. “The Chief Election Commissioner is shielding vote chors,” he declared, urging immediate transparency and accountability.

What Gandhi demanded — and what’s next

At the press conference Gandhi sought:

• Immediate handover of the technical logs (IP addresses, device ports, OTP trails) requested by the Karnataka CID;

• An independent, transparent forensic audit of deletion applications and the software/process used;

• Accountability from the Election Commission and action against those found responsible.

He warned that unless the technical trail is produced and scrutinised, public confidence in the electoral rolls and the “one person, one vote” principle will continue to be undermined.

Political fallout

The allegations come at a sensitive political moment, with several states facing electoral tests. If the claims of large-scale, automated deletions are substantiated by technical evidence, the consequences could be profound: legal challenges to electoral rolls, demands for emergency audits, and a major political confrontation between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

At the same time, Gandhi’s indictment of the CEC escalates the pressure on the poll body to demonstrate transparency and furnish the requested data or publicly explain why it cannot.

  Election Commission’s response to Rahul Gandhi’s  : The Election Commission’s response to Gandhi’s specific technical allegations and whether the EC has already supplied or refused the Karnataka CID’s requests. Gandhi says formal requests exist; the next developments to watch for are the EC’s statement, any court filings seeking disclosure of logs, and whether central investigative agencies take up the CID’s trail. Would you like a shorter bulletin version for immediate distribution, or a suggested set of questions reporters can ask the Election Commission and the Karnataka CID for follow-up coverage?