‘No Letter, No Meeting Request’: ECI Questions Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Intent’

New Delhi — The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a detailed rebuttal to the Congress party’s allegations regarding a sudden surge in voter turnout during the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. The response came after Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge reiterated concerns raised by Rahul Gandhi in a public post. The ECI dismissed the claims as baseless and politically motivated, while also questioning the Congress leadership’s procedural approach.

Sources within the ECI revealed that despite making serious public accusations, Rahul Gandhi has not formally approached the Commission. “Even two days after making unfounded allegations, Rahul Gandhi has neither submitted a complaint nor sent any letter, nor requested a meeting with the ECI. Why?” asked a source.

This silence, they said, shows a lack of genuine intent to engage constructively.

The Commission clarified that the Congress had already received a formal response to its earlier queries on December 24, 2024, which is publicly accessible on the ECI’s official website, contradicting the party’s claims of opacity.

Addressing accusations of deliberate secrecy in the electoral roll process, the ECI urged District Congress Presidents to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs) at every polling booth and actively participate in the yearly electoral roll revision process. The Commission also highlighted that it regularly conducts training programs for BLAs from all political parties at its training institute and encouraged Congress to utilize these resources to avoid misunderstandings.

Further, the ECI stated that if Congress chooses not to engage directly in the roll revision, it should at least trust the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) appointed by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) under Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. These officials operate within a legal framework designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of electoral rolls.

ECI sources reminded the public that electoral roll preparation, poll conduct, and vote counting are overseen by statutory authorities such as the ERO, Presiding Officer (PRO), and Returning Officer (RO), all functioning under the ECI’s constitutional mandate under Article 324. Ultimately, they emphasized, the election outcome is decided by the voters, not by the administrative process.

In a sharply worded conclusion, ECI sources criticized what they called a pattern of political blame-shifting by Congress. “Any party preparing for elections should do so in the political arena, not by ‘fighting the referee’,” they said.

The Commission added, “The voters of India are intelligent enough to understand why the Indian National Congress resorts to fighting the referee whenever it loses elections.”

With inputs from IANS