In an exclusive conversation with India Today’s Rajdeep Sardesai, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami pushed back against allegations of a cover-up in the ongoing voter roll manipulation controversy in Karnataka and Maharashtra. The controversy resurfaced after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission, under current CEC Gyanesh Kumar, of shielding those responsible for alleged illegal additions and deletions of voters using centralised software.
Gopalaswami, however, argued that the charge of protectionism is “misplaced,” pointing out that the case was not uncovered by opposition parties or external agencies but by the Commission itself. “The case was initiated by Election Commission officials in Karnataka. It was not brought in by some outside party. The information was shared with the CID early on,” he said, underscoring that it was the EC’s own field officers who first noticed anomalies and escalated them for investigation back in 2023.
Rahul Gandhi recently claimed that the Karnataka CID had written to the Election Commission 18 times for more details, receiving little or no cooperation. Addressing this, Gopalaswami clarified that the Commission had already supplied the necessary information to the initial Investigating Officer (IO). The current flurry of demands, he explained, came only after a change of officer. “Let’s not focus on the number of letters. The first IO received what was needed. Now that there’s a new IO, he’s asking for different information, which the EC will provide. There’s no reason for the Commission to withhold anything,” he said.
The former CEC also sought to highlight that the alleged irregularities were not systemic failures but rather instances where the Commission’s mechanisms worked as intended. A Booth Level Officer, during verification, spotted an incorrect deletion and flagged it. “That’s how the pattern was detected. It shows the system worked, not failed,” he stressed.
To guard against future misuse, the Commission has reportedly introduced technical safeguards, including restrictions on the number of online voter roll requests from a single IP address. Gopalaswami admitted that fraudulent applications were indeed filed in Karnataka’s Alland Assembly constituency, but confirmed that arrests had been made and the matter was under active probe.
On calls for a nationwide probe into possible manipulation, Gopalaswami dismissed the idea as speculative. He argued that the voter verification system—requiring ground-level confirmation for every deletion or inclusion—would make it nearly impossible for mass fraud to go unnoticed. “If this had happened elsewhere, it would have surfaced,” he said, reiterating that systemic abuse could not be hidden.
He also defended the Commission’s current Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which opposition parties have criticised as a ploy to disenfranchise voters ahead of elections. Citing past examples, he said similar roll revisions had been carried out before the 2007 Uttar Pradesh and 2008 Karnataka elections, with the sole aim of ensuring accuracy. While acknowledging that errors occur—such as cases where living voters are mistakenly marked deceased—he argued that these mistakes are isolated and not part of a deliberate disenfranchisement drive.
More broadly, Gopalaswami cautioned that the escalating war of words between political leaders and the Election Commission could weaken the credibility of a vital democratic institution. “If there were genuine concerns, a meeting could have been requested. No party has ever been turned away by the Election Commission. Turning it into a public spectacle only serves to damage trust in the system,” he said.
Asked bluntly whether he believed the Commission had anything to hide, Gopalaswami was categorical in his denial. “The investigation is underway. It was initiated by the EC itself. They’ve already cooperated, and they will continue to. There is no cover-up,” he insisted.
As state elections approach, his remarks are likely to fuel the ongoing national debate over electoral integrity, with the former CEC’s defence of the Commission standing in stark contrast to the opposition’s claims of institutional bias and manipulation.
