Rahul Gandhi Warns Election Commission Gyanesh Kumar, Accuses Of Foul Play, Says “We Will Find You”

The Lok Sabha debate on electoral reforms highlights concerns about EVM reliability, EC neutrality, and legal protections for election officials, with calls for paper ballots, access to EVM architecture, and reforms to the voter list and CCTV laws.

The Opposition used a Lok Sabha debate on electoral reforms to attack the Election Commission’s neutrality, question Electronic Voting Machines, and seek a return to paper ballots. Leaders also pressed for changes to the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Commissioners, and to the 2023 law that protects election officials from legal action for decisions taken in office.

The discussion, nominally on electoral reforms, quickly turned confrontational. Treasury and Opposition benches traded accusations as several Opposition MPs said they no longer trusted the impartial role of the Election Commission or the reliability of EVMs. Many also claimed that official voter lists and surveillance rules were being misused to help the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Lok Sabha clash on Election Commission electoral reforms and EVM trust

The Opposition had originally demanded a debate on the SIR in Bihar but settled for a broader discussion on electoral changes. During the debate, they alleged that the Election Commission was acting “at the behest” of the BJP government. The recurring charge was that institutions meant to be neutral were now stacked in favour of the ruling side during elections across several states.

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi focused his intervention on gaining Opposition access to the “EVM architecture” and on legal safeguards for election officers. Gandhi repeated allegations of “vote theft” and said crucial institutions had been “taken over”. Gandhi also stated, for the first time, that if the Opposition came to power, the 2023 immunity law for election officials would be changed.

Institutional capture and Election Commission electoral reforms debate

Rahul Gandhi framed his charges as part of a wider pattern involving state bodies. Gandhi alleged an attempt at “wholesale capture of India's institutional framework” and named the Election Commission along with education regulators, intelligence agencies, the CBI, the ED and the Income Tax department. Gandhi said he had already “put forth adequate proof of how the Election Commission is colluding with those in power to shape the elections”.

Gandhi then questioned recent changes to the system of selecting Election Commissioners, especially the removal of the Chief Justice of India from the panel. He said, "why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the EC? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe the CJI… I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Modi and Amit Shah and on the other side the LoP. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. Why is the PM and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the EC is going to be?" he said.

Legal immunity, CCTV rules and Election Commission electoral reforms

Gandhi also criticised changes made in December 2023 that granted legal immunity to members of the Election Commission for actions taken while in office. He said, "No PM has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no EC could be punished for any action they take while they are ECs. Why would the PM and Home Minister give this tremendous gift of immunity to the EC? Finally, why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data they contain changed? Why was the law put in place that allows the EC to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. It is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election," he said.

On alleged misuse of voter lists and campaign schedules, Gandhi claimed that election strategies were being built around the Prime Minister’s needs, sometimes stretching campaigns for months. Gandhi repeated his earlier charge that the Haryana election was “stolen” and that “the theft was ensured by the ECI”. Gandhi also pointed to the SIR in Bihar and said, "Even after the SIR in Bihar, 1.2 lakh duplicate photos exist in the voter list… We have proven this in Karnataka, we have proven this in Maharashtra and I am absolutely certain that this is how you are winning elections in Madhya Pradesh, in UP, Bihar, across the country," he said.

Demands list in Parliament on Election Commission electoral reforms

Rahul Gandhi outlined a set of electoral changes that the Opposition wanted implemented. These involved access to voter data, transparency over EVM design, and rolling back recent protections offered to Election Commissioners. Gandhi argued that these limited steps would address most of the concerns raised by Opposition parties about the conduct of elections and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Detailing these demands, Gandhi said, "Give machine-readable voter lists to all political parties one month before election, take back the law that allows the destruction of CCTV footage. And while you are doing that, also tell us what is the architecture of the EVM. Give us access to the EVM. Let our experts go and see what is inside the EVM. Until today, we have not had access to the EVM. Change the law that allows the EC to get away with whatever he wants to do. That is all the electoral reforms you need," he said.

Gandhi also issued a warning to serving Election Commissioners about relying on the present legal shield. He said, "I want to assure the Election Commissioners that they might be under the impression that this law lets them get away with it. Let me remind them. Don't worry, we are going to change the law. And we are going to change it retrospectively and we are going to come and find you," he said. Across speeches by Opposition MPs, the shared thread was clear: deep suspicion of the Election Commission’s neutrality, rejection of EVMs as fully trustworthy, and a push for paper ballots along with legal and procedural electoral reforms.