‘Tired script': Election Commission slams Rahul Gandhi's ‘vote theft' claim; cites 2018 Kamal Nath case
Rahul Gandhi
over his allegations of large-scale voter fraud, accusing him of repeating an old political 'script' and challenging him to either formally verify his claims or apologise to the nation.
In a statement, the poll body claimed the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha had raised 'baseless' charges similar to those made in 2018 by then Madhya Pradesh Congress chief
Kamal Nath
, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Rahul Gandhi Releases New Video, Claims More 'Proof' On EC, BJP Collusion in Voter List Fraud
Also read:
Rahul Gandhi responds to EC's 'sign affidavit' dare; demands full e-voter data
'Rahul Gandhi repeated a tired script': EC
'At his recent press conference, Rahul repeated a tired script. In 2018, it was then Kamal Nath, the then President of MPCC; today, it's the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha playing the same tune,' the EC said.
According to the EC, in 2018, Congress leaders attempted to mislead the court by producing documents from a private website to claim errors in electoral rolls, including instances where 'the same face was shown again for as many as 36 voters.'
The EC said those defects had been rectified months earlier and the details shared with the party. 'The Court refused to accept the prayer of Kamal Nath. Now, in 2025, they, being aware that the same trick cannot be played in court, are trying to mislead the people by claiming irregularities in the electoral rolls,' it added.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
The Most Beautiful Women In The World
5minstory.com
Undo
Also read:
Priyanka Gandhi slams EC; backs Rahul's claims of voter fraud
'Opposition leader tried to sensationalise issue': EC
The Commission also cited a specific case involving the name of Aditya Srivastava, which Rahul claimed appeared in three different states. 'In fact, [this] was rectified months ago,' it said. It further reminded the Congress leader that the Kamal Nath judgment had 'settled' the position on machine-readable electoral rolls, and accused him of disregarding the Supreme Court's decisions.
'Law provides a specific procedure for both making objections to the roll and for making an appeal.
Instead of availing the legal processes, he tried to sensationalise the issue by making baseless claims in the media,' the statement said.
'If Rahul believes in his analysis and believes that his allegations against the EC are true, he should have respect for the law and sign the Declaration, or apologise to the nation for raising absurd allegations against the EC.'
EC vs Rahul Gandhi
The standoff follows letters from the chief electoral officers (CEOs) of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Haryana asking Rahul to submit the names of voters he believes were wrongly included or removed, along with a signed oath under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Karnataka CEO reminded him that rolls are prepared transparently under the Representation of the People Act, while Maharashtra and Haryana officials noted that Congress had not filed any formal appeals over alleged discrepancies.
On Thursday, Rahul alleged 'vote chori' in a Karnataka constituency involving 1,00,250 votes and irregularities in the rolls.
Also read:
Rahul Gandhi poses 5 questions day after big 'vote theft' claim; says poll body acting as BJP 'agent'
Dismissing the Commission's demand for a signed declaration, he said: 'I am a politician; what I say to the people is my word.
I am saying it to the people publicly, take it as an oath. Interestingly, they haven't denied the information.' He accused the EC of colluding with the BJP to 'undermine democracy' and warned polling officials allegedly involved of consequences if the Opposition came to power.
He also claimed that the EC was 'destroying evidence' by limiting the preservation of CCTV and webcasting footage to 45 days unless election results were legally challenged.
'It is the 21st century; you can keep as much data as you want in a hard drive, even 10 years old data, but the Election Commission wants to destroy the CCTV footage in 45 days,' he said.
The poll body earlier said Rahul had failed to respond to its June 12 letter inviting him to substantiate earlier claims of 'rigging' in the Maharashtra Assembly elections. 'Why? Is it because his media statements were baseless?' EC sources told PTI.
Rahul has warned that such alleged irregularities could be repeated in the upcoming
Bihar elections
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Minutes from now, Delhi's hottest contest – between two BJP leaders
A stone's throw from Parliament, Delhi's Constitution Club was unusually crowded on Tuesday, as MPs and ex-MPs queued up to cast their vote for what has become the hottest contest this season in the steaming Capital. Generally considered a routine affair, the polls to the administration of the club are the cynosure of all eyes this time, away from the brouhaha over the Election Commission — the reason being the two leaders, both belonging to the BJP, at the heart of it. Former Union ministers Rajiv Pratap Singh Rudy and Sanjeev Balyan are fighting it out for the post of Secretary (Administration), considered the club's most powerful post. Rudy has been holding the post for over two decades now, which makes him both entrenched and vulnerable. Officially, the BJP has kept out of the election, but there is buzz among MPs across parties that challenger Balyan has the tacit blessings of the party's top leaders. Those supporting Rudy cite the vast improvements at the club, saying the sea change from how it was run earlier has happened under the Bihar leader. However, there are many MPs and ex-MPs who feel that the long time Rudy has occupied the post is precisely the reason that change is due. The electorate that lined up to vote Tuesday, numbering about 1,200, included Union Home Minister Amit Shah, BJP president and Union minister J P Nadda, Union minister Piyush Goyal, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge. Speaking to reporters, Balyan said that whatever the result, the dignity of the club must remain intact and that, as a platform for MPs and ex-MPs from across party lines to engage with one another, it was a good thing the club was in the news again. One common complaint of those backing Balyan is that MPs no longer get the same importance as they once did. BJP Lok Sabha MP from Jharkhand Nishikant Dubey told reporters Tuesday: 'Dr Balyan will win because this club has gone into the hands of IAS, IPS, IFS and pilots. It has to be retrieved for the MPs and should be back in the hands of MPs and ex-MPs. That is why we will make Dr Balyan win.' Rudy is no longer an MP. Some other MPs and ex-MPs also talk of officials 'frequenting the place' and non-MPs being found using the gym and other facilities. 'Will IAS officers or defence officers allow MPs in their clubs? If not, why is it that officials are seen to be controlling the Constitution Club?' a former Congress MP said. 'Wives of MPs have also complained. There are also complaints that the prices are too high.' A former BJP MP claimed that many MPs and former parliamentarians may rally against Balyan, given the charges against him in the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. 'Rudy may also get significant support from MPs who are fellow Thakurs like him,' said a former BJP MP. Therefore, many believe that Congress MPs would play a major role in determining the outcome. A former Congress MP, however, said the votes of the party members could go both ways, with Rudy seen as favourite of the Lutyens Delhi crowd. A former BJP MP agreed with Balyan that the best part of the election was that a largely 'passive' club had come alive – and that many parliamentarians have woken up to its importance. Elections are typically held for Secretary (Administration), Secretary (Sports), Secretary (Culture) and Treasurer and 11 posts of Executive Members in the club. Congress MP Rajiv Shukla earlier won the post of Secretary (Sports) uncontested after BJP Rajya Sabha MP Pradip Kumar Varma withdrew his candidature. Similarly, DMK MP Tiruchi Siva won the Secretary (Culture) post after former BJP MP Pradeep Gandhi withdrew his candidature. The post of the treasurer, too, saw no contest after former Bharat Rashtra Samithi MP AP Jithender Reddy withdrew his candidature, with DMK MP P Wilson winning. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is the outgoing treasurer. Standing for elections for the 11 executive member posts are 14 MPs, including former BJP Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Agarwal, former BJP Lok Sabha MP Pradeep Gandhi, former Congress Lok Sabha MP Jasbir Singh Gill, BJP Lok Sabha MP Naveen Jindal, former Congress MP Aslam Sher Khan, TDP Lok Sabha MP Krishna Prasad Tenetti, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Pradip Kumar Varma, Samajwadi Party Lok Sabha MP Akshay Yadav, TMC Lok Sabha MP Prasun Banerjee, former Shiv Sena Lok Sabha MP Shrirang Appa Barne, former BJD Lok Sabha MP Kalikesh Singh Deo, the RSP's N K Premachandran as and former MP Anoop Singh. Formed in the 1940s for parliamentarians, the club has conference rooms, coffee clubs and an outdoor cafe. Along with lounges for MPs, there is also a billiards room, a gym, a unisex salon, and a swimming pool.
Hans India
28 minutes ago
- Hans India
LS clears Mines Amendment Bill; House adjourned till August 18
New Delhi: The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2025 by voice vote, even as Opposition members continued to protest over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar. The Bill, moved by Union Minister for Mines G. Kishan Reddy, seeks to overhaul India's mining framework to promote transparency, boost domestic production, and secure critical mineral supply chains. As the House reassembled at 4:30 p.m., the protests resumed with Opposition MPs shouting slogans from the Well, demanding a debate on the SIR exercise. Presiding over the session, Jagdambika Pal repeatedly urged members to return to their seats, reminding them that the Supreme Court had "upheld the Election Commission's stand" and that the matter was sub judice. "Why are you coming to the Well before the House Well?" he asked, as papers were flung toward the Chair. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju criticised the Opposition for tossing pieces of paper at the Chair and said he had never witnessed such behaviour in his life. The Chair also reprimanded Opposition members, naming Gaurav Gogoi and alleging, "You are encouraging your fellow members to toss pieces of paper." Despite the chaos, the Bill was taken up for consideration. Minister Reddy said the legislation would ensure royalty benefits for states, incentivise exploration of deep-seated minerals, and modernise the sector through technology-driven reforms. He emphasised that the Bill aligns with India's National Critical Mineral Mission and aims to reduce dependence on imports of strategic resources like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths. A key provision of the Bill is the establishment of mineral and metal trading exchanges - electronic platforms that will allow real-time trading of minerals and processed metals. These exchanges are expected to bring transparency, curb cartelisation, and attract investment in mining infrastructure. The Bill also proposes to rename and expand the scope of the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), now to be called the National Mineral Exploration and Development Trust (NMEDT), with powers to invest in overseas acquisitions of critical mineral blocks. During the debate, several MPs spoke in support of the Bill. Malvika Devi (BJP, Kalahandi), G. Laxminarayan (TDP, Anantapuram), Gurumoorthy Maddila (YSRCP, Tirupati), Brijmohan Agrawal (BJP, Raipur), and Sangeeta Kumari Singh Deo (BJP, Bolangir) highlighted the Bill's potential to boost employment, enhance state revenues, and strengthen India's strategic autonomy in mineral sourcing. Jagdambika Pal, responding to the disruptions, asked pointedly, "Do you oppose financial gain for the states? What are you opposing?" His appeals, however, were drowned out by continued sloganeering and paper-throwing from the Opposition benches. The Bill marks a significant update to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957, with previous amendments in 2015 and 2021. It introduces simplified licensing, expanded territorial scope for exploration, and adjudicatory mechanisms for dispute resolution. Also, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman moved for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. She also moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the House. To which the chair told protesting members of the Opposition, "Did you hear what the finance minister said? Will you oppose the Bill to be referred to the select committee?" However, the members of the Opposition kept on shouting slogans. The Speaker will decide the members of the committee and the terms and conditions regarding the panel. The Committee shall submit its report by the first day of the next session. Following the passage of the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill, the Chair adjourned the House till Monday, August 18, as the Monsoon Session continued to be marred by repeated disruptions over electoral transparency and procedural demands.
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Why Donald Trump is wrong to take over the DC police
AMERICA'S CAPITAL city was designed as a showcase for its democracy: sweeping boulevards, white-marble palaces of administration, monuments aplenty. This week, however, Washington, DC has become a manifestation of something less inspiring: the grandstanding instincts of the current president. This time, Donald Trump's preoccupation is violent crime. Mr Trump has been banging this drum for decades. 'Roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighbourhoods dispensing their own brand of twisted hatred,' warned Mr Trump nearly 40 years ago. The occasion then was the rape and assault of a white woman in New York's Central Park, for which five black and Hispanic men were later wrongfully convicted. On August 11th Mr Trump all but quoted himself: 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,' he said from the White House briefing room. Then he deployed the National Guard to Washington; took control of its police force; and promised to 'get rid of the slums' and clear out its homeless population. This is not the president's first use of the armed forces for civilian law enforcement in a city that reviles him and that he reviles right back. Earlier this summer Mr Trump sent National Guard troops to protect federal property during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles. In 2020 he ordered them to disperse Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Washington. In neither instance did local Democratic leaders ask for his intervention. Now Mr Trump hints that the Washington deployment could be a blueprint for other troublesome (ie, Democratic-run) places. That will be easier said than done, however. The capital has an unusual legal status as a territory of the federal government granted qualified home rule. Elsewhere the president would face more legal impediments. The practical impact of the president's order may be modest. He has authorised the DC National Guard—which is tiny—to act as cops. About 200 troops will support law enforcement. By law his control of the city police can last for only 30 days; after that Congress would need to extend it. It is a far cry from a federal takeover of Washington. Seeking to justify his order, Mr Trump cited several awful attacks against government workers. In early August carjackers beat up and bloodied a former DOGE staffer. In June stray gunfire killed a congressional intern. Last year an official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was shot to death in a carjacking. In 2023 a Senate aide was stabbed and a congressman was robbed at gunpoint. 'It's becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness,' said Mr Trump, likening the capital to Baghdad and Bogotá. The president is right that violent crime in Washington surged in 2023 and that it numbers among the most dangerous cities in America. He neglected to say that crime there has since tumbled. This year's murder rate is falling towards the pre-pandemic trend. The number of carjackings, which doubled between 2022 and 2023, is declining too, though they are still more frequent than they were before the pandemic. Overall the capital is considerably safer than it was in the 1990s, when it had the highest murder rate in the country, and it is a bit less dangerous than it was a decade ago. Mr Trump's action will irk the 700,000-odd citizens of Washington, whose elected government is being sidelined. And it is hypocritical. Mr Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress have been impeding the city government, preventing it from spending the taxes it has raised and forcing cuts to services like policing. Republicans have thus exacerbated Washington's crime problem. Mr Trump's focus on the city over more violent ones is not just because he can see it from his bedroom window. It is because the federal government retains more authority over the capital than over states or even other federal territories. The president commands the DC National Guard—in states, governors have that job—and he can take temporary control over the police department. Washington's unique status means these same tactics cannot easily be replicated outside the capital. To 'federalise' the National Guard for arrest purposes elsewhere—to empower troops to act as cops—Mr Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act. Only then can the armed forces legally be put to use to quell a domestic uprising. The act was last used in 1992. Invoking it again would be immensely controversial. Mr Trump's approach in Washington, then, is clever when viewed through a lawyer's lens. Which is not to say that his order is justified or good policy. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
