<p>The revelations emerging from the Special Investigation Team (SIT)’s probe into the Aland voter deletion case in Karnataka raise serious questions about the integrity of India’s electoral processes. The SIT has found that suspects were allegedly paid Rs 80 for every successfully deleted vote ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections. </p><p>Over 6,000 fraudulent applications (Form 7s) were filed to strike off legitimate voters, many from Dalit and minority communities, though only about 30 deletions succeeded. The scale and execution of this alleged fraud should have alarmed the Election Commission (EC). Instead, it has chosen to deny the irregularities and deflect responsibility.</p>.Aland vote theft case: Rs 80 paid for every vote 'successfully deleted', claims Karnataka Police SIT probe.<p>The case came under the national spotlight after the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of obstructing the investigation. Gandhi alleged that the CID, which earlier handled the probe, had written to the EC 18 times seeking vital technical data, without receiving a single response. </p><p>For the record, the EC has maintained that it fully cooperated with the Aland inquiry, a claim that the state government has categorically denied. Earlier, Gandhi had alleged large-scale irregularities in the Mahadevapura constituency in Bengaluru. Independent fact-checks later confirmed many of these charges. The EC’s reluctance to engage meaningfully with the investigation and its silence on the verified discrepancies have eroded public confidence in its neutrality. </p><p>Even more troubling has been the Commission’s inconsistent approach. When Gandhi raised concerns about “vote theft”, the EC’s response was to demand that he file an affidavit under an irrelevant rule – something it has never required from BJP leaders who have made comparable allegations elsewhere. </p><p>Why should the EC, which alone holds the data on voter lists, ask anyone else to furnish proof? The evidence is already within its custody. Its insistence on procedural formality, while failing to exercise due diligence itself betrays a lack of seriousness in confronting electoral manipulation.</p>.<p>An election authority earns credibility through even-handed action. The EC’s duty is to safeguard the sanctity of the vote, not to shield itself from scrutiny. By refusing to engage transparently with investigators and by discouraging legitimate questions, it risks diminishing its moral authority and weakening public faith in the democratic process. The Aland episode is a reminder that even attempted voter fraud, if ignored or minimised, can corrode institutional integrity. </p><p>The Commission must now confront these doubts with openness and resolve, standing above suspicion rather than hiding behind procedure. Accountability, not defensiveness, should be its armour. For if it chooses evasion over action, it risks losing more than its reputation; it endangers the people’s faith in the very fairness of elections.</p>
<p>The revelations emerging from the Special Investigation Team (SIT)’s probe into the Aland voter deletion case in Karnataka raise serious questions about the integrity of India’s electoral processes. The SIT has found that suspects were allegedly paid Rs 80 for every successfully deleted vote ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections. </p><p>Over 6,000 fraudulent applications (Form 7s) were filed to strike off legitimate voters, many from Dalit and minority communities, though only about 30 deletions succeeded. The scale and execution of this alleged fraud should have alarmed the Election Commission (EC). Instead, it has chosen to deny the irregularities and deflect responsibility.</p>.Aland vote theft case: Rs 80 paid for every vote 'successfully deleted', claims Karnataka Police SIT probe.<p>The case came under the national spotlight after the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of obstructing the investigation. Gandhi alleged that the CID, which earlier handled the probe, had written to the EC 18 times seeking vital technical data, without receiving a single response. </p><p>For the record, the EC has maintained that it fully cooperated with the Aland inquiry, a claim that the state government has categorically denied. Earlier, Gandhi had alleged large-scale irregularities in the Mahadevapura constituency in Bengaluru. Independent fact-checks later confirmed many of these charges. The EC’s reluctance to engage meaningfully with the investigation and its silence on the verified discrepancies have eroded public confidence in its neutrality. </p><p>Even more troubling has been the Commission’s inconsistent approach. When Gandhi raised concerns about “vote theft”, the EC’s response was to demand that he file an affidavit under an irrelevant rule – something it has never required from BJP leaders who have made comparable allegations elsewhere. </p><p>Why should the EC, which alone holds the data on voter lists, ask anyone else to furnish proof? The evidence is already within its custody. Its insistence on procedural formality, while failing to exercise due diligence itself betrays a lack of seriousness in confronting electoral manipulation.</p>.<p>An election authority earns credibility through even-handed action. The EC’s duty is to safeguard the sanctity of the vote, not to shield itself from scrutiny. By refusing to engage transparently with investigators and by discouraging legitimate questions, it risks diminishing its moral authority and weakening public faith in the democratic process. The Aland episode is a reminder that even attempted voter fraud, if ignored or minimised, can corrode institutional integrity. </p><p>The Commission must now confront these doubts with openness and resolve, standing above suspicion rather than hiding behind procedure. Accountability, not defensiveness, should be its armour. For if it chooses evasion over action, it risks losing more than its reputation; it endangers the people’s faith in the very fairness of elections.</p>
