Key facts
- India's Election Commission (ECI) is facing public scrutiny over its drive to verify about a billion voters.
- Opposition parties allege manipulation of voter rolls and exclusion of millions, benefiting the ruling BJP.
- A report in The Indian Express alleged internal divisions within the ECI over registration procedures.
- The Congress party and the 'cockroach' youth movement have demanded the resignation of ECI head Gyanesh Kumar.
- About 130 million people were excluded from the first draft list and required to prove their credentials.
- India's Supreme Court raised concerns that notices to voters were 'machine generated'.
India's Election Commission (ECI) is facing intense public scrutiny over its ongoing drive to verify the eligibility of approximately one billion voters. Opposition parties, including the Congress party, have accused the ECI and its head, Gyanesh Kumar, of bias and manipulating voter rolls to benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Reports from The Indian Express newspaper have further fueled concerns, alleging internal divisions within the ECI over registration procedures and voter lists, with two top election commissioners reportedly expressing concerns to Kumar multiple times over 10 months without them being considered. The ECI has stated that all its decisions are lawful and that differing views within the commission are not unusual.
The controversy has led to nationwide protests organized by the Congress party and the 'cockroach' youth movement, demanding Kumar's resignation. Local media reports indicate that around 130 million people have been excluded from the initial draft voter lists and are now required to prove their credentials to be re-enrolled. The Supreme Court has also expressed concern, noting that some notices sent to voters to prove their eligibility appeared to be machine-generated.
The ECI maintains that names are only removed from rolls under specific circumstances such as death, multiple registrations, relocation, or untraceability, and that officers must record detailed reasons for deletion. Voters whose names are excluded can appeal the decisions or reapply for registration. However, opposition parties argue that arbitrary deletions and lengthy appeal processes have prevented millions from voting and could be used to suppress votes in upcoming state elections.