Just 24 deletions, not 6,000, were made in Aland: Ex-CEC Gopalaswami

Former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, in an exclusive interview with The Federal, defended the integrity of India’s voter roll system, stressing that online deletion requests undergo strict verification, OTPs do not validate claims, and the Election Commission has fully cooperated with investigations.

Exaggerations and politically-motivated allegations risk undermining public trust in democratic institutions, he warned.

Edited excerpts:

Rahul Gandhi has presented what he calls “100 per cent black-and-white proof” of systematic voter deletions in Karnataka’s Aland constituency, allegedly using automated software. From your experience, how plausible is such a large-scale manipulation of voter rolls?

The first point I would like to make is that “large-scale deletion” is a misnomer. The correct description is a large-scale deletion request or deletion proposal. About 6,015 such applications were received and, after inquiry, only 24 were actually removed.

There was absolutely no involvement of anybody within the Election Commission, either in Karnataka or in Delhi.

To facilitate electors, the Commission has made provision for online applications. Voters can now apply online for three purposes: inclusion of their name, deletion of their name (for example, if shifting constituencies), or correction of errors in their EPIC card. In all three cases, an online application can be made without visiting the office.

However, approval is not automatic. Each application goes through an inquiry. In cases of deletion, the law requires that a notice be issued and a reply obtained before deletion is carried out.

In this particular case, one of the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) received applications for her area. On checking, she noticed that one of the names listed belonged to someone she personally knew and who was very much present. She immediately informed her superior that the deletion proposal was incorrect. Further checks revealed that all these applications had come together. After verification, 24 names were deleted, and a criminal case was filed for attempting to meddle with the voter roll.

The matter was investigated thoroughly. EC officials in Karnataka convened meetings with police officers, discussed what records were required, and provided all necessary materials in 2023 itself. Additional information was later sought through a letter dated September 1.

The Commission will certainly provide whatever information it has to aid the investigation. But to suggest that information is being withheld because a letter sent on September 1 had not been responded to immediately is unfair. Such exaggerated statements and unnecessary allegations are unfortunate.

Also Read: Rahul escalates 'vote chori' charge, calls EC a 'watchman shielding thieves'

The EC admits to “unsuccessful deletion attempts” in Aland and even filed an FIR but why is the EC shying away from offering the technical support that the CID is requesting for? There were 18 requests dropped since January 2024.

Let us not go into unnecessary allegations. It has been said that there are 18 records since January 24. But if the Election Commission’s idea was not to cooperate, they would not have given information in the first instance. In fact, when the case was filed, whatever information was asked for was provided immediately in 2023 itself.

The incident in question occurred in 2023, when Gyanesh Kumar was not the CEC. So why is he being blamed? The effort is clearly aimed at discrediting him and the institution.

The question to ask in return is: what was the Investigating Officer doing between September 2023 and September 2025? Was he sleeping? I am not interested in making allegations, but it is worth noting. Two years later, the inquiry officer may have changed, or the officer might have been promoted or transferred. Whatever the reason, two years down the line, a new officer has now asked for additional information.

The Commission, having given the information in 2023, will not hesitate to provide any further details sought. But it is unreasonable to expect that if a request is made today, the information must be furnished tomorrow, and then accuse the Commission of concealment when that does not happen. This habit of exaggerating into allegations is an unfortunate trend.

As for the claim that there have been 18 requests since January 24, the fact remains that except for the one sent on September 1, all 17 have already been answered. Otherwise, how did the officer get this information in the first place? To say that the Commission is withholding responses is misleading and meant only for optics.

What is actually happening is this: a new Investigating Officer - or one who could not complete the inquiry for two years - has now asked, on September 1, for additional information. The Commission will provide it if it has it, and if it does not, it will say so. That is the reality.

After Rahul Gandhi’s press conference and allegations, the EC chief, within a span of minutes, called them “baseless and incorrect”. But since he is now the Leader of the Opposition, wouldn’t it have been better as a matter of courtesy for the Commission to promise an internal inquiry and come back with a detailed reply instead?

If a statement is made with allegations and discourtesy, it will naturally invite a discourteous response. You know this very well. If you dish out discourtesy, you will get discourtesy. It is as simple as that.

For the record, Mr Gyanesh Kumar has not been discourteous. He simply chose not to answer the specific question and instead said what he wanted to say. In fact, two statements were issued. One came immediately from the CEC’s office, countering the allegations. The second came from the CEO’s office, which gave a detailed account of the matter and, at the end, assured that any documents required would be provided.

You cannot be more polite than that.

There is no such thing as an “allowed margin of error.” The Commission strives for 100 per cent accuracy, but natural mistakes do occur.

Please note this clearly: the truth was not told. Six thousand deletions were never made. Only 24 were made. Yet a case was built on this falsehood, and then there is an expectation that the Election Commission should respond politely. What kind of approach is this?

Numbers matter. When you repeatedly say “6,000 deletions,” it creates the wrong impression that 6,000 deletions actually took place. They did not. Only 24 were removed, not 6,000.

Also Read: Rahul alleges massive voter deletion scam. Is it possible? Expert explains

In your interview yesterday on India Today, you mentioned that errors do happen. What is the margin of error?

Please don’t mix up two things. One is an error. My point was that no electoral roll at any given point of time will ever be completely error-free. That is natural.

Earlier, the Election Commission prepared electoral rolls effective January 1 every year. Later, the Commission proposed to the government that if elections were held towards the end of the year, those who turned 18 or became eligible after January 1 would lose out. It suggested four qualifying dates instead - January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 - so that the rolls could be revised more frequently.

Despite this, even if a roll is finalised on October 1 for an election in November, people may die or shift residence in the interim. That is inevitable. In fact, in 1983, political parties in West Bengal went to court seeking a stay on elections, arguing that the rolls were incomplete. The court rejected the plea, ruling that no roll could ever be 100 per cent accurate every day, and elections could not be stopped on that ground.

That was the context in which I said mistakes can be there. But let me be clear: there is no such thing as an “allowed margin of error.” The Commission strives for 100 per cent accuracy, but natural mistakes do occur. For example, when a Booth Level Officer visits homes and finds them locked, neighbours may not provide information about whether the family has moved abroad or a member has passed away. In such cases, names may remain on the roll.

I have experienced this myself. After moving from Delhi to Chennai in 2009, I got myself enrolled for the 2011 Assembly election. At the polling booth, a party agent pointed out my son’s name on the earlier Delhi roll - though by then he had shifted. This illustrates how such discrepancies naturally arise.

So, yes, mistakes can occur. But they are natural mistakes - not deliberate or fraudulent ones. To allege mischief or conspiracy on the basis of such errors is simply not acceptable.

You seem to be giving the Election Commission a clean chit. But are you also categorically denying that Form 7, which deals with deletion of voters, was automatically filled within seconds, with an OTP sent to someone’s number in Coimbatore and not in Aland. Are you saying this is all wrong?

Please understand the methodology. OTP is generated simply to ensure that the person making the application has a valid phone number and is a genuine person — in other words, not a robot. But that does not mean the Election Commission, or anyone else, accepts the contents of the application as true. As I said, the contents are verified.

To suggest that information is being withheld because a letter sent on September 1 had not been responded to immediately is unfair.

Before verification, an application is never accepted. Just because someone makes an application and is confirmed by OTP that they are human, it does not follow that the Election Commission will treat the application as valid. It goes for an inquiry.

The application goes from the ERO to the BLO. The BLO conducts an inquiry and reports back: “I have checked — this is not true,” or “I have checked — this is true.” Where it is true, action is taken to include, delete, or correct. Where it is not true, no action is taken. In a few isolated cases, something may be overlooked, but when a pattern of large numbers is found, it becomes clear that someone is trying to commit mischief.

Let me give another example. In 2008, before the Madhya Pradesh elections, an electoral roll included a dog’s photograph. People went ballistic. The explanation was simple: the person who prepared that entry had not been paid by the agent who retained him. In revenge, he put a photo of the dog. That does not make the Commission responsible for the dog’s photograph appearing on the roll.

So, OTPs only confirm a contact point and that a human initiated the request. They do not authenticate the truth of the application. Verification and inquiry follow — and that is where the Commission’s responsibility, and the safeguards, actually lie.

Also Read: All info with ECI already shared with police: Karnataka CEO on Rahul's allegations

Are you rejecting the possibility of insider involvement or any systemic lapses within the Election Commission?

There was absolutely no involvement of anybody within the Election Commission, either in Karnataka or in Delhi.

In your tenure, how robust were the checks on Form 7 applications? Did you ever encounter attempts at mass impersonation or automated submissions?

Yes, in a different way altogether. Bulk applications were never permitted then. But in 2004–05, the Commission allowed an exception. The reasoning was that while individual voters had to take the trouble of applying on their own, political parties were already involved in ensuring that voters were enrolled. They received copies of the rolls during revisions, could send representatives to check, and could help voters prepare the required forms - Form 6 for inclusion, Form 7 for deletion, and Form 8 for correction.

So, the Commission decided to permit political parties, and only political parties, to submit bulk applications on behalf of voters. The idea was that parties could collect the forms locally and hand them over to the Election Commission office to ease the process.

However, in practice, this relaxation led to misuse. Many bogus applications were detected during inquiries. The Commission then withdrew the provision, ruling that bulk applications would not be accepted from anyone, not even political parties.

The EC’s credibility rests not just on fairness but also on public perception. Do you think the current commission’s response - calling allegations “baseless” without providing detailed rebuttals - risks eroding trust in the institution?

That is exactly the attempt. Repeat a lie a hundred times, and by the 101st, people may start to believe it. The incident in question occurred in 2023, when Gyanesh Kumar was not the Chief Election Commissioner. So why is he being blamed? The effort is clearly aimed at discrediting him and the institution.

Also Read: BJP accuses Rahul of trying to create Nepal-like unrest after his 'vote-theft' charge

Should the EC conduct a nationwide audit of deletion attempts, as Rahul Gandhi suggested, to reassure voters that the Aland case isn’t symptomatic of a larger problem?

We don’t have any problem with the process. The State Intensive Revision (SIR) is being carried out across the country and is already underway in Bihar. There, bulk applications have not been allowed. Each individual is approached personally, asked to verify their entry in the electoral roll, confirm that their name and address are correct, and sign off.

If you dish out discourtesy, you will get discourtesy. It is as simple as that. For the record, Mr Gyanesh Kumar has not been discourteous.

If the forms are not returned, the Booth Level Officer (BLO) follows up. For example, if six forms were given out in a household but only four come back, the BLO checks what happened. Perhaps one person has passed away and another has migrated. This is how the figure of 65 lakh came about.

Sometimes multiple EPIC numbers are involved in a household. If a household has three EPIC numbers but only one person signs, the remaining two forms are counted as unreturned or false. Despite this, every effort is made to ensure accuracy, with full cooperation from political parties.

The Commission has 1.6 lakh BLOs, and political parties have an equal number assisting in this process. Political parties and the Election Commission are not adversaries; they share the goal of conducting free and fair elections and maintaining accurate electoral rolls. That is why parties cooperate, appoint their own BLOs, and help ensure that nothing improper takes place.

Also Read: Vote Chori allegations again: Key takeaways from Rahul Gandhi's press conference

If you were in the CEC’s chair today, facing such allegations, what concrete steps would you take immediately to restore public faith?

You cannot fight falsehood easily. I can try to tell the truth, but if it is not accepted, I cannot force it on anyone. If that is the fate of the country, so be it.

People in the political arena should realize that nothing is achieved by running down institutions. If genuine mistakes occur, they should be corrected. No responsible authority, least of all the Election Commission, would refuse to fix errors, because mistakes leave a black mark on democracy.

Unfortunately, constant allegations serve no purpose. For example, a minister in Karnataka once said that a revision took place during their tenure, emphasising that political parties also have a role to play in ensuring accurate electoral rolls. He was sacked for that remark. That is an internal matter, but it highlights the point: political parties are part of the system and should cooperate with the Commission to ensure the process works properly.