New Delhi: Following Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of “vote chori” (vote theft) Thursday, Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of at least three states—Karnataka, Maharashtra and Haryana—have asked for a formal oath from Gandhi on his claims.
Gandhi alleged at a press conference that the Election Commission of India (ECI) was colluding with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to “steal” elections. He specifically pointed to the Mahadevapura seat in Karnataka, alleging duplicate voters, invalid addresses and bulk voters led to a “vote chori” of more than 1 lakh votes.
The CEOs of the three states have asked Gandhi to sign an oath under Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, along with the names of such electors, “so that necessary proceedings can be initiated”.
The ECI also ‘fact-checked’ Gandhi’s claims on social media platform, X, calling the statements “misleading”.
“If Shri Rahul Gandhi believes what he is saying is true, then he should sign the Declaration/Oath as per Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 and submit the same to CEO of Haryana by today itself to that necessary proceedings can be initiated,” the ECI’s response said.
Can the ECI ask for such an oath from Gandhi? What are the repercussions of a false oath, and what is the remedy available to a person making such allegations? ThePrint explains.
Also Read: ‘Jaitley was sent to threaten me, LS poll was rigged’: Rahul’s speech at Congress conclave raises storm
What does the law say
Rule 20 of the 1960 Rules, which the ECI has quoted, deals with inquiries into claims and objections. It says that the registration officer shall hold a summary inquiry into every claim and objection received by him, and the officer may require that evidence tendered by any person be given on oath.
However, former Secretary General of Lok Sabha and constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary said that Rule 20 does not apply in Gandhi’s case.
He pointed out that Rule 20 follows the rules laid down for the procedure to be followed right after the publication of draft rolls by the Election Commission. Once draft rolls are published, claims for inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry can be lodged within 30 days, according to Rule 12 of the 1960 Rules. Rule 20 then outlines how officials should conduct an inquiry into such claims and objections.
“That rule is applicable only to the publication of the draft roll. Once a draft is published, they can accept requests for inclusion and deletion. And then the electoral registration officer can ask the objector to give an oath and file an affidavit,” he explains.
“So they are quoting the wrong rule because in this case, the electoral roll became final and the election was held. Therefore, EC officials cannot ask Rahul Gandhi to give an affidavit,” Achary told ThePrint.
The letter issued by the CEOs to Gandhi also points out that as far as the conduct of elections is concerned, election results can only be questioned through an election petition before the high court. However, Gandhi hasn’t taken that route.
What is the remedy
If a person has certain claims and objections to an electoral roll after publication of the final rolls or after the elections, is that person left without a remedy? Achary says, no.
He points out that the remedy is “inherent” in Article 324 of the Constitution, which tasks the ECI with the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President.
“When ECI has the responsibility to prepare electoral rolls, ECI also has a duty to look into the complaints which have been made about any serious infirmities in the rolls,” Achary asserts.
Referring to Gandhi’s allegations, Achary told ThePrint, “The allegations have been made by the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. He is not an ordinary citizen. Naturally, if he has made these allegations, he has done so with a sense of responsibility. It is the responsibility of the ECI to look into it and assure the Indian public that the rolls were prepared properly and in accordance with the law.”
The repercussions of ‘vote chori’
In case Gandhi takes an oath on his allegations, what are the repercussions if the allegations are found to be false?
The oath template given to Gandhi requires him to declare : “I am aware that making a false declaration in connection with electoral rolls is punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950. I also understand that giving false evidence is punishable under Sections 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act 1950 talks about “false declarations” and the punishment for giving a false declaration.
It provides for a one-year jail term, fine or both, for a person who makes a written statement “which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true” in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll, or the inclusion or exclusion of any entry.
Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines “giving false evidence” as making a false statement when a person is legally bound by an oath to state the truth, or bound by law to make a declaration.
Section 229 of BNS says that anybody who gives false evidence can be punished with a jail term of up to three years, along with a fine of up to Rs 5,000.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Amid Rahul’s ‘match fixing’ charge, ECI to set up webcasting in 100% polling stations
