New Delhi-Amid the ongoing controversy over the integrity of India's electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued a press note on August 16, defending its processes and emphasizing the role of political parties in ensuring accuracy. However, the Indian National Congress swiftly rebutted the claims point by point on social media platform X, accusing the ECI of shifting blame for alleged manipulations and highlighting systemic flaws that they claim favor the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Adding fuel to the fire, prominent public interest lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan labeled the ECI as a "dishonest stooge of the BJP," arguing that the commission has failed in its primary duty to maintain clean voter lists.

The ECI's press note, titled "Pure Elector Rolls strengthen democracy," outlined the decentralized preparation of electoral rolls under guidelines issued by the commission. It detailed how Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), typically SDM-level officers, finalize rolls with assistance from Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who bear responsibility for their correctness. The note stressed transparency: draft electoral rolls are shared digitally and physically with political parties and uploaded to the ECI website, allowing a one-month period for electors and parties to file claims and objections before final publication.

Post-finalization, copies are again shared with recognized parties and published online, with a two-tier appeal process available—first to the District Magistrate (DM) and then to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of each state or union territory. The ECI highlighted that utmost transparency is maintained as per law, rules, and guidelines. It criticized some political parties and their Booth Level Agents (BLAs) for not examining rolls during the appropriate time and failing to point out errors to SDMs/EROs, District Election Officers (DEOs), or CEOs.

Addressing recent allegations of errors in electoral rolls, including those from past elections, the ECI argued that issues should have been raised during the claims and objections period. This, they said, would have allowed corrections before elections. The commission welcomed ongoing scrutiny by parties and electors to purify rolls, aligning with its objective.

In a sharp response posted on X, the Congress party, tagging Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accused the ECI of accepting electoral roll manipulations in various constituencies as proven with evidence, while attempting to transfer responsibility to political parties by citing the one-month objection window. The party labeled the ECI's arguments as "naive and stupid" and raised several counterpoints.

First, Congress questioned the feasibility of opposition parties detecting patterns like duplicate voters without digitally searchable rolls. They noted that in the 2019 General Elections, rolls were digital, but subsequent versions were provided as scanned copies. This, they alleged, was a deliberate attempt to prevent algorithms from identifying duplicates, invalid addresses like "house #0s," or absurd entries such as "children of dfsdfsdfsd and qwewrwqefsdf."

Second, referencing a recent allegation by Union Minister Anurag Thakur about 4,000 voters sharing the house name "Chounderi" in Wayanad, Congress demanded to know how Thakur could analyze non-digital PDFs so quickly. They speculated whether Thakur had access to digital rolls not available publicly, or if the ECI conducted analysis for the BJP. The party mocked Thakur's ability to review a 12 lakh-voter roll in days without advanced technology or hacking into ECI systems, clarifying that "Chounderi" is a place name in Kerala, not a family name.

Third, Congress pointed out that most fake votes were added via Form-6, used for first-time voter registration, which includes a declaration under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, making false statements punishable by up to one year imprisonment, fine, or both. They argued that such crimes have no "one-month expiry date" and demanded details on actions taken against identified fake voters.

Fourth, in Thrissur, Congress claimed their workers flagged illegal voter additions during elections, leading to the transfer of a BLO who refused to add fakes. They dismissed the ECI's arguments as unworthy of the paper they were printed on.

Finally, Congress questioned the ECI's "SIR" (possibly referring to a voter verification process) in Bihar, accusing it of declaring living citizens dead and removing them from rolls amid widespread complaints. They referenced people approaching the Supreme Court to prove they were alive and Rahul Gandhi having tea with individuals declared dead by the ECI. The party condemned the ECI for these actions allegedly benefiting the BJP and issuing a "shameless" note despite being the watchdog of democracy.

Echoing these sentiments, Prashant Bhushan stated that the ECI is wrongly blaming political parties for fake voters, asserting it is the commission's job to prepare proper lists. He noted that the ECI holds voter data electronically with addresses, fathers' names, and EPIC numbers, making fake detection straightforward. Bhushan accused the ECI of becoming a "dishonest stooge of the BJP."