Google News Preferred Source on Google News Indian Republic Logo

Explained: What Happens Now That India's LoP Rahul Gandhi Missed EC's Affidavit Deadline on ‘Vote Theft’ Allegations

Edited by IndianRepublic.in - Location: New Delhi, Delhi, India

The seven-day deadline set by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for Congress MP and India's Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi to substantiate his allegations of large-scale voter exclusion has lapsed without compliance. 

Rahul Gandhi did not submit any signed affidavit or documentary evidence, as was explicitly demanded by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar during a press conference on August 17. 

Image Source: INC India
The ultimatum, presented in direct response to Gandhi’s public accusation that over 1.5 lakh names had been illegally removed from electoral rolls, was unambiguous: either file a sworn declaration with supporting facts or issue a public apology.

With no affidavit forthcoming and no apology offered, the legal and institutional implications now hinge not on what has already been done but on what the Election Commission or other authorities may do next. 

Importantly, the ECI itself lacks prosecutorial powers and cannot, on its own, initiate criminal proceedings or disqualify a sitting Member of Parliament. 

However, that does not rule out consequences under applicable laws -- should a formal complaint or legal proceeding be initiated, either by the Commission or by a third party.

Under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, a complainant who is not a registered voter in the constituency in question must file a sworn affidavit if they allege irregularities in the electoral roll. 

This provision was specifically invoked by the CEC to underscore that Gandhi, not being a voter in the constituencies he referenced, could not make such serious claims without legally verifying them through a signed declaration. 

His failure to do so renders his statements procedurally invalid under electoral law and, by extension, not actionable by election officers.

That said, procedural invalidity does not by itself trigger penal consequences. For Rahul Gandhi to face legal penalties such as disqualification or criminal liability, further conditions would need to be met. 

For instance, if he had filed a false affidavit, he could have been prosecuted under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 

Since no affidavit was submitted, that provision does not apply. Similarly, the ECI could consider filing a criminal defamation case under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code if it deems his remarks defamatory to the institution. 

While no such move has been made so far, the possibility remains open depending on the Commission’s internal assessment.

On the matter of disqualification, the legal threshold is even higher. 

Disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act requires a criminal conviction -- typically with a sentence of two years or more -- for specific offences such as promoting enmity, bribery, or filing false affidavits. 

At present, Gandhi has not been charged, let alone convicted, in relation to the “vote theft” allegation. Therefore, the question of disqualification does not arise under current circumstances.

Politically, the issue may continue to draw scrutiny, but institutionally, the ECI has signalled a preference to close the matter without further public engagement. 

Officials have indicated that no formal statement will be issued post-deadline, suggesting that the Commission views Gandhi’s non-compliance as a procedural lapse rather than a criminal act. 

Nevertheless, the CEC’s strong remarks -- questioning whether unsubstantiated claims amount to a subversion of the Constitution -- highlight the seriousness with which the Commission regards attempts to undermine public trust in the electoral process.

Gandhi, for his part, retains legal options. He could still submit documentation supporting his claims, although the formal window set by the ECI has closed. 

Alternatively, he may argue that his statements were political in nature and protected under the broader rights afforded to elected representatives, particularly under Article 105 of the Constitution relating to parliamentary privilege. 

However, such arguments would become relevant only if legal proceedings were initiated against him.

To cut a long story short, Rahul Gandhi’s failure to meet the Election Commission’s deadline has invalidated his “vote theft” claims within the procedural framework of electoral law. 

While no criminal liability or disqualification is in play as of now, the matter could evolve if new facts emerge or if legal action is pursued. 

For the moment, the Commission appears to have treated the issue as closed, but with an implicit warning that future violations of legal process may not be met with the same restraint.

Loading... Loading IST...
KNOW INDIA
View →
🌍 MULTIPOLAR MOVEMENT TRACKER ON
Loading headlines...

Loading Top Trends...

WORLD-EXCLUSIVE

Scanning sources...

🔦 Newsroom Feed

    🔗 View Source
    Font Replacer Active
    ABOUT US CONTACT US PRIVACY POLICY TERMS & CONDITIONS INDIAN DIPLOMACY PARLIAMENT SESSION POTUS TRUMP KREMLIN ALERTS LOP RAHUL GANDHI PM NARENDRA MODI