Following leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of over 1,00,000 votes being “stolen” in Karnataka’s Mahadevapura assembly constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Election Commission of India has asked him to provide his claims in a declaration under oath.

"If Shri Rahul Gandhi believes in his analysis and believes that his allegations against the Election Staffs are true he should have no problem in submitting claims and objections against specific voters and sign the Declaration/Oath as per Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960," the Election Commission said on Sunday.

The Election Commission has reiterated its demand for a declaration or oath under Rule 20(3)(b) since Gandhi first made the allegations last week. Since then, not just the Election Commission of India, but the Chief Electoral Officers of three states –Maharashtra, Karnataka and Haryana – have asked him to provide his claims under oath.

The demand for a declaration under oath was made for the first time on Thursday after Gandhi in a press conference alleged collusion between the Election Commission and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and said that the Congress lost the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha seat in the 2024 elections because over 1,00,000 votes were “stolen”.

Gandhi said that while the Congress won seven out of eight segments in the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency, it lost in the Mahadevapura assembly segment in which it was defeated by over 1,14,000 votes. Gandhi alleged that 1,00,250 votes were “stolen” through five ways – 11,965 duplicate voters, 40,009 voters with fake and invalid addresses, 10,452 bulk voters or single address voters, 4,132 voters with invalid photos and 33,692 voters misusing Form 6 through which new voters are registered.

The Election Commission has not just demanded a declaration under oath but further said that he should either “sign the Declaration on issues” that he had raised “or else apologise to the nation.”

However, Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960 applies to claims and objections raised after the preparation of the draft rolls following a revision exercise by the Election Commission.

So is the Election Commission justified in citing Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960?

What does the Rule say?

Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960 relates to claims and objections and states that the registration officer shall hold a summary inquiry into every claim or objection in respect of which notice has been given under rule 19 and shall record his decision thereon.

Rule 20(3) says:

“The registration officer may in his discretion – (a) require any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before him; (b) require that the evidence tendered by any person shall be given on oath and administer an oath for the purpose.”

According to constitutional expert and former Lok Sabha secretary general P.D.T Achary, Rule 20(3)(b) refers to claims and objections that are raised after the preparation of the draft electoral rolls following a revision. 

“The Rule which they are quoting, does not apply to this situation at all. Either they have misunderstood the law or they are deliberately misleading people. Rule 20 (3)(b) mentions an oath that does not apply to this situation, that is something that can be done after the publication of the draft electoral list. The law laid down the maximum period- 30 days-following which the draft roll is finalised,” he said.

Former chief election commissioner O.P. Rawat also said that Rule 20(3)(b) relates to claims and objections that may come up after revision of electoral rolls-either summary or intensive.

“There is no connection between the requirement of the oath to examine errors in the electoral rolls. This is not the revision process. They (Congress) did some research and found some errors, so there is no need for any requirement under oath,” he said.

What is the remedy?

While the law does not specify how to deal with questions raised on the integrity of the electoral lists months after the election period is over, Achary said that the remedy is to go back to Article 324 of the Constitution which empowers the Election Commission to prepare electoral lists.

“Neither in Representation of the People Act, 1950 nor in the RER, 1960 is there any provision to deal with a situation like this – where irregularities have been raised 15 months after the elections. Therefore you have to go back to Article 324, which gives the Election Commission the power to prepare the electoral rolls which is a basic part of elections. If there is a serious irregularity, which has come to the notice of some citizens of India, they have to complain to the Election Commission. When the Constitution has vested such a responsibility in the Election Commission, Article 324, includes an inherent command in the EC to examine the complaints that question the integrity of the electoral lists,” he said.

Achary said that the Election Commission has to respond to such serious complaints raised by any citizen at any stage.

“The statutes do not deal with this situation but then you have to go back to the Constitution after all it is the fundamental law and find a remedy there. Article 324 applies here that casts a duty on the EC to look into such serious complaints,” he said.

Rawat also said that in cases of serious complaints raised, the Election Commission can come out with a report in the public domain.

“The Election Commission in the past took such allegations seriously and would examine threadbare, every aspect and come out with a report in the public domain. The preparation of the electoral list is a huge process, which is a churning process, errors will come up. The intention of the Election Commission is that such errors must be removed as soon as possible,” he said.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.