By Vikram Kilpady
The most frequent complaint about government functioning is that it’s too slow—especially when compared to the private sector. But India’s Election Commission seems determined to prove otherwise. In a span of six months, it has overhauled key electoral procedures with stunning speed—first in December 2024, and then again in May 2025.
The latest flashpoint: a quiet directive issued on May 30 to all state chief electoral officers. In it, the Election Commission of India (ECI) drastically curtailed the period for retaining video and photo evidence related to elections—including footage from polling booths, campaign events, and electronic voting machine (EVM) storage and movement. From a prior span of up to a year, such material will now be kept for just 45 days after the declaration of election results.
The rationale? The ECI claims this footage was increasingly being misused on social media by individuals not involved in the election, selectively edited and weaponized to spread “misinformation and malicious narratives”. The Commission asserted that such usage had no legal consequence and hence necessitated a policy change. However, it clarified that footage for any constituency facing an election petition would be retained until the case concludes.
This is not the first time the poll body has tweaked the rules. In December 2024, the ECI amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961—conveniently after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the release of video records for the Haryana assembly polls held in October that year. The amendment added a crucial phrase: “as specified in these rules”, effectively removing video footage from the category of election papers open to public inspection.
Critics argue this was a deliberate move to deny access to video evidence, particularly by Opposition parties questioning poll outcomes.
MAHARASHTRA, THE TIPPING POINT?
Nowhere has the ECI come under more fire than in Maharashtra, where Congress and its allies have alleged foul play after a shocking assembly election result in late 2024. The Congress-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), which had won 25 out of 48 seats in the state during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, was reduced to a dismal 50 seats in the 288-member assembly, while the BJP-led NDA swept 235 seats.
What raised eyebrows was not just the disparity in outcomes, but anomalies in the ECI’s data reporting. For the first time, the poll body began releasing provisional turnout figures on polling day, followed by final turnout numbers two days later, which were often five-six percent higher. This unexplained surge, particularly after 5 pm on polling day, led to Opposition claims of manipulation—a concern that made its way to court.
RAHUL GANDHI’S CHARGE: MATCHFIXING
In a sharply worded op-ed published on June 7 titled, “Matchfixing Maharashtra”, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused
the ECI of facilitating electoral fraud. He levelled three key charges:
1. Fake voters: Voter rolls in Maharashtra swelled from 9.29 crore in May 2024 to 9.7 crore by October, surpassing the estimated adult population of 9.54 crore.
2. Turnout manipulation: The delayed final turnout figures were cited as evidence of potential vote inflation.
3. Evidence concealment: The new 45-day retention policy was described as a calculated move to destroy potential proof of malfeasance.
“The Election Commission should be answering questions, not destroying evidence,” Gandhi wrote, pointing to the refusal to share voter lists or video footage as a pattern of deliberate obfuscation.
BIHAR: A TEST CASE FOR INSTITUTIONAL REDEMPTION?
As Bihar prepares for its assembly elections, all eyes are on the ECI. The poll body has announced that live webcasting will now cover all polling stations in the state—up from 50 percent in earlier polls. But questions remain about whether this footage will be accessible and for how long.
With Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United) faltering and the RJD-Congress alliance sensing an opportunity, the Bihar election could be a flashpoint. But more than political rivalry, what’s at stake is the credibility of the ECI itself—once an admired guardian of Indian democracy, now accused of selective transparency and institutional capitulation.