Last week, the Election Commission (EC) issued an intriguing press release, inviting party presidents and senior leaders—whom it referred to as “key stakeholders”—for discussions on strengthening “electoral processes.”
This statement, released on March 11, followed two earlier press releases from the EC.
The first, issued on Sunday morning, March 2, was a hurried attempt to clarify that duplicate Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) numbers did not indicate “fake voters.” The EC insisted these duplicates were merely due to differences in “alphanumeric series.”
However, the second press release on March 7 contradicted this stance, admitting that the issue of duplicate EPIC numbers had persisted for decades. It further promised a resolution within 90 days.
The EC’s flurry of statements—first dismissing concerns, then pledging a fix, and finally reaching out to political parties—reveals a state of panic.
Shocking Revelations Spark Political Uproar
The trigger for the EC’s anxious response was a bombshell revelation by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on February 27. She exposed serious irregularities in India’s electoral rolls, revealing that duplicate EPIC numbers were widespread.
Banerjee presented detailed lists of Bengal voters whose EPIC numbers were assigned to multiple individuals. Alarmingly, some voters’ names from BJP-ruled states had been added to Bengal’s electoral lists.
For instance, a voter from Murshidabad, Mohammad Sainul Islam, shared his EPIC number with “Sunita” from Hisar, Haryana. Another case involved an EPIC number linked to three people—two named Suman, one from Bengal and another from Haryana, and a third person, Nurjamal, from Murshidabad.
This revelation triggered widespread alarm across opposition parties. The Congress called it “startling” and “bizarre,” while the Shiv Sena (UBT) voiced concerns in its newspaper, Saamana. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) raised the issue in Parliament.
Further scrutiny of the EC’s own handbook showed that duplicate EPIC numbers could result in voters being denied their rights, as EPIC numbers are linked to photographs.
Electoral Integrity Under Threat
Duplicate EPIC cards are an unacceptable flaw in a democracy as vast and complex as India’s. If passport numbers, Aadhaar cards, and vehicle registration plates can be unique, why should different voters have the same EPIC number?
Facing mounting criticism, the EC has now initiated discussions with political parties. This is a notable shift for an institution known for its opacity, particularly regarding how it calculates voter turnout.
Yet, major concerns remain. The EC has not disclosed the total number of duplicate EPIC cards. If the commission is unaware of the exact number, how does it plan to eliminate them within 90 days?
Moreover, the EC claims duplicate EPIC cards have existed since 2000. If that is the case, how many elections—both assembly and general—have been affected over the past two decades?
Troubling Trends Across India
West Bengal is not the only state where electoral irregularities have surfaced. After the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections, the Congress flagged a puzzling discrepancy: the EC registered 4 million new voters in just five months between the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections (May–October 2024). However, over the five-year period from 2019 to 2024, only 3.2 million voters were added. The Congress called this a “logistical and statistical absurdity.”
In Andhra Pradesh, the YuvajanaSramikaRythu Congress Party (YSRCP) challenged the relaxation of postal ballot norms, arguing that the surge in postal voters warranted investigation. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, concerns persist.
Similarly, in Odisha, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) raised concerns over a significant difference between provisional and final voting percentages.
There have also been allegations of voter suppression. During the 2024 general elections, reports emerged from Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, accusing local police of confiscating voter cards and preventing certain communities from voting.
Another major issue is the unexplained rise in voter turnout after 5 p.m. on polling days, especially in regions unfavorable to the BJP.
In Delhi, during the 2025 assembly elections, the AAP alleged a dramatic increase in voter deletion and addition applications. According to EC data, Delhi’s electorate grew by 400,000 between the 2020 assembly polls and the 2024 general elections. However, in just seven months (May 2024–February 2025), another 400,000 voters were added. This raised suspicions about potential manipulation.
Transparency activists have also pointed out that, during the 2024 polls, the EC initially provided turnout figures only as percentages, withholding absolute numbers. When detailed data was eventually released, it showed a sharp increase in turnout compared to initial reports.
With mounting complaints from political parties and citizen groups, it is evident that serious flaws in the electoral process can no longer be ignored.
A Double Standard in Electoral Oversight?
Concerns have also been raised about the EC’s alleged bias in handling election violations. Critics argue that the commission applies different standards to the BJP and opposition parties.
During the 2025 Delhi election, the EC failed to take action against the BJP for using Budget pronouncements in full-page newspaper ads as campaign promises.
Similarly, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the EC did not act against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his controversial communal speech in Banswara, Rajasthan, where he warned of “mangalsutras being snatched away.” It was only after sustained public pressure that the EC issued a mild message to the BJP’s party president regarding “star campaigners.”
This selective enforcement contrasts with the EC’s swift action against opposition leaders. Rahul Gandhi received a notice for calling Modi panauti (bad luck)—a remark far less inflammatory than Modi’s past statements, such as the “shamshaan-kabristan” comment in 2017 or his 2019 remark about identifying “people creating violence by their clothes.”
Concerns Over Election Commission Autonomy
Under the Modi government, critics argue that the EC’s independence has been systematically weakened. A major turning point came in 2023 when the BJP-led government altered the selection process for Election Commissioners. Previously, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was part of the selection panel. However, a new law removed the CJI’s role, giving the ruling party greater influence.
Citizens must ask: Why was the Chief Justice removed from the selection process?
Past instances suggest pressure on Election Commissioners. In 2020, Ashok Lavasa resigned after dissenting on Model Code violations in 2019. Soon after, he was appointed to an overseas role with the Asian Development Bank.
Ahead of the 2024 elections, Election Commissioner Arun Goel abruptly resigned. His replacement, Gyanesh Kumar, was a former secretary in Amit Shah’s ministries, raising concerns about partisanship.
The Battle to Safeguard Indian Democracy
With widespread allegations of bias and opacity, the EC has failed to instill confidence in opposition parties or the general public.
Article 324 of the Constitution entrusts the EC with ensuring free and fair elections. If electoral rolls contain fraudulent voters or are manipulated in any way, the legitimacy of election results is compromised.
As BR Ambedkar emphasized, credible voter lists are the foundation of democracy. If India’s electoral process is perceived as rigged, it risks losing public trust—similar to what has happened in Bangladesh.
The EC must embrace greater transparency and scrutiny. It cannot afford to ignore mounting concerns about duplicate EPIC numbers, manipulated voter lists, and disproportionate turnout spikes.
The Election Commission is democracy’s last line of defense. If it fails to uphold electoral integrity, India’s democratic framework could deteriorate into an unaccountable autocracy, leaving citizens with no escape.