Guwahati: In this exclusive interview, veteran journalist and commentator Paranjay Guha Thakurta speaks with Paresh Malakar about the recent and unprecedented press conference held by the Election Commission of India (ECI). An incisive critic of the government’s policies, Guha Thakurta provides his expert analysis on the CEC’s responses to questions about allegations of “vote theft” and ‘electoral roll irregularities’.
In these edited excerpts, Guha Thakurta gives a behind-the-scenes account of the press meet, its unusual timing and purpose, and what the CEC’s technical and often defensive answers reveal about the state of India’s electoral democracy.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Paresh Malakar: Yesterday, you attended the Election Commission (EC) press meet. Were you satisfied with the answers you received to your questions, and if not, why?
Paranjay Guha Thakurta: Before I answer your question, let me provide some context. This was the first open press conference held by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar since he took office on February 19, 2025. The press meet was held at the National Media Centre, and only accredited journalists were allowed to attend. As a journalist accredited with the Press Information Bureau since the late 1980s, I can tell you that a press conference like this is unprecedented.
Traditionally, EC press conferences are routine events to announce election dates. Never before has one been organized specifically to address allegations made by prominent opposition leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, as well as representatives from the Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, and Biju Janata Dal.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The timing of the press conference is also noteworthy. It was held on a Sunday at 3 p.m., which coincided with Rahul Gandhi‘s “yatra” in Sasaram, Bihar, protesting against what he called “vote chori” (vote theft).
Another significant factor is the Supreme Court’s order on August 14. A bench comprising Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued a crucial directive to the EC. The order instructed the EC to publish the names of the 6.5 million people whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls in Bihar in a machine-readable format.
It also stated that Aadhaar cards could be used as a valid document for complaints about exclusion of names, a change from the previous list of 11 documents. These were very important decisions, and I believe CEC Gyanesh Kumar felt obligated to respond due to the intense criticism.
Regarding your question about whether I was satisfied with the answers, my answer is no. I did not get complete answers to the questions I asked.
I asked why the elections in Bihar were being held in such a hurry, especially during the peak of the monsoon season. His response was that a similar revision of electoral rolls had taken place during the monsoon period in 2003. To me, this felt like a “whataboutery” response.
I also questioned the addition of 4 million new names to the voter rolls in Maharashtra between the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections. He responded by asking why the opposition parties were complaining eight months after the process was over, citing technical rules from the Representation of the People Act. He did not, however, answer my core question: Is it true that the number of registered voters in Maharashtra is greater than the number of people eligible to vote (i.e., above the age of 18)?
When I asked about the surge in voter turnout after 5 p.m., he provided a technical response, stating that the turnout was still less than 10% in the last hour. He also did not answer why the EC remained silent while political party representatives, such as Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, were answering questions about the elections.
Some questions were partially answered, while others received technical responses. In some cases, the CEC indulged in what I would call “whataboutery,” and some questions were completely “ducked.”
Do you see a pattern here, as if the government follows a procedural manner but leaves out the essence of the matter?
I can only say that the CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, gave very technical answers. For example, he said there is a difference between “machine readable” and “machine searchable.”
When asked why the CCTV footage of polling booths was destroyed after 45 days, his response was that it might violate individual privacy. He even brought up the privacy of women voters, saying, “Do you want your mother’s and sister’s pictures to be shown?” To me, this is not a complete answer. We are talking about CCTV footage in a public place, not a private bedroom.
He also repeatedly brought up Rahul Gandhi’s allegations. Without naming him, he referred to Gandhi’s PowerPoint presentations and said that he should either file an affidavit under oath or apologize to the nation. He gave a technical reason for this, stating that a voter must be from a particular constituency and must file a complaint under oath within 45 days of the election results. He said that the complaints from the Biju Janata Dal and the Samajwadi Party were not made under oath or within the deadline.
However, he did not mention that Anurag Thakur, a former minister in the BJP government, also made public allegations of false voting in Rae Bareli and Wayanad. By the same logic, shouldn’t Anurag Thakur also be asked to submit his allegations under oath or apologize to the nation? The Congress party believes that the EC’s reaction is a veiled threat to the Leader of the Opposition, and they have accused the EC of acting in a partisan manner.
I have seen parts of the press conference, and I feel that the EC was very patronizing and condescending. They were not sharing information but were simply guarding and defending their actions. Am I correct?
Paresh-babu, you are entitled to your opinion. I will not contradict you. I encourage all your viewers to watch the full press conference on the Election Commission of India’s website and come to their own conclusions.
Regarding Rahul Gandhi’s complaint, they said they would not consider it unless he either submits it under oath or apologizes. What do you think will happen now?
I really don’t know what will happen. The CEC repeatedly mentioned that there are still 15 days left for citizens to make complaints about exclusions or duplications in the electoral rolls. We will have to wait and see what happens when the final roll is released in early September.
One important point the Supreme Court made, which the CEC also alluded to, is the use of Aadhaar cards as proof of being a voter. This is significant because the EC has been using the same cut-off dates—July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004—that are being used for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). You, being from Assam, know how important these dates are.
When asked about the addresses of some voters being “zero,” the CEC said it might be because they are homeless. He essentially sought to say that the political parties complaining have not done their homework. However, the Election Commission is a constitutional body with the responsibility to ensure that there is “one person, one vote” and that elections are free and fair. This is the essence of India’s democracy, where every citizen above 18 has the right to vote, regardless of their circumstances.
The responsibility of correcting the voter list and ensuring voting rights primarily lies with the Election Commission, doesn’t it?
I agree entirely. It is undoubtedly the complete responsibility of the Election Commission of India. Mr. Kumar provided a lot of statistics, mentioning the hundreds of thousands of booth-level officers (BLOs) and agents who are part of this huge exercise. In Bihar alone, 90,000 BLOs are supposed to visit the homes of nearly 80 million voters. So, yes, it is the EC’s responsibility to ensure that elections take place in a free and fair manner. How political parties and citizens respond to this situation is yet to be seen.