Indian Democracy Under Scrutiny: Electoral Fraud Allegations, Media Silence and the Crisis of Accountability

The bedrock of Indian democracy faces unprecedented questioning as allegations of electoral irregularities, opacity in the Election Commission's functioning, and an alleged media silence have coalesced into what many observers are calling a profound democratic crisis. The controversy, which erupted following the 2024 general elections and subsequent state assembly polls, continues to reverberate through India's political landscape, raising fundamental questions about the health of the world's largest democracy. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's presentation of data alleging electoral fraud has become a lightning rod for debate about the integrity of India's electoral system. In a press conference held in November 2024, Gandhi presented what he claimed was statistical evidence of manipulation in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), pointing to irregularities in the Maharashtra Assembly elections. His data highlighted unusual patterns in vote counting across 47 constituencies where, according to his analysis, the final five to seven rounds of counting showed inexplicable trend reversals favouring the ruling coalition. Gandhi specifically questioned why EVMs displayed 99 per cent battery charge after being in use for over six hours, suggesting possible tampering or replacement of machines during the counting process.

The authenticity of Gandhi's data has become a matter of intense dispute. Independent data analysts and statisticians have offered divergent assessments. Some experts, including members of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have corroborated certain aspects of the Congress leader's analysis, particularly regarding anomalies in voter list additions. According to ADR's analysis published in December 2024, several constituencies in Maharashtra witnessed voter list increases of 10 to 15 per cent in the weeks preceding the election, a rate significantly higher than demographic projections would suggest. The organisation documented approximately 6.7 lakh dubious voter additions across the state, concentrated particularly in urban constituencies. However, the Election Commission of India has categorically rejected these allegations. In its detailed response issued on November 28, 2024, the Commission described Gandhi's claims as "baseless, unsubstantiated and a deliberate attempt to undermine public confidence in democratic institutions." The Commission's technical experts explained that EVMs operate in standby mode between counting rounds, consuming minimal battery power, which accounts for the high battery retention. The Commission further clarified that all EVMs undergo rigorous testing and are sealed in the presence of political party representatives, making tampering virtually impossible under the current protocols. The controversy extends beyond Maharashtra. Analysis of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections revealed discrepancies between exit poll predictions and actual results that exceeded historical norms. While exit polls typically carry a margin of error, the divergence in several states reached eight to 12 percentage points, according to data compiled by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). In Haryana, for instance, most exit polls predicted a Congress victory, yet the Bharatiya Janata Party secured a comfortable majority, winning 48 of 90 seats compared to Congress's 37.

Statistical anomalies identified by independent researchers have added fuel to the controversy. Dr Kannan Gopinathan, a former IAS officer turned activist, analysed voting patterns across 543 Lok Sabha constituencies and identified what he termed "statistically improbable uniformity" in vote swings in approximately 135 seats. His analysis, published on independent media platforms in December 2024, suggested that in these constituencies, the final rounds of counting showed remarkably consistent patterns favouring the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, deviating from the randomness typically expected in electoral outcomes.

The Supreme Court of India is currently seized of several petitions challenging the integrity of the electoral process and demanding greater transparency. The most significant among these is the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms seeking 100 per cent verification of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips against EVM counts. Currently, the Election Commission verifies VVPAT slips from only five randomly selected polling stations per constituency, a protocol the petitioners argue is statistically insufficient to detect systematic fraud. The matter has been listed for hearing before a Constitutional Bench, though no date has been fixed as of February 2026.

Another crucial petition, filed jointly by 16 opposition parties in December 2024, demands that the Election Commission release CCTV footage from counting centres and provide detailed logs of EVM usage. The Commission has resisted these demands, citing security and privacy concerns. In its affidavit to the Supreme Court filed in January 2025, the Commission argued that releasing CCTV footage could compromise the secrecy of the ballot and expose the identity of voters, though critics contend that properly redacted footage would address these concerns while ensuring transparency. The Court has sought a detailed response from the Election Commission, with the next hearing scheduled for March 2026.

The question of why mainstream media houses have largely remained silent on these allegations despite their gravity has become equally contentious. India's press freedom rankings paint a troubling picture. According to Reporters Without Borders' 2024 World Press Freedom Index, India ranked 161st out of 180 countries, a precipitous decline from its 140th position in 2014. The organisation's report highlighted "systematic violence against journalists, a politically partisan media landscape, and the growing use of draconian laws to prosecute journalists" as key factors behind India's poor ranking.

Media analysts and journalism scholars point to multiple intersecting factors explaining what they characterise as self-censorship in mainstream media. Professor Sevanti Ninan, founder of the media watchdog The Hoot, argues that the concentration of media ownership in the hands of large corporate conglomerates with diverse business interests has fundamentally altered editorial independence. Many major media houses are owned by business groups with significant exposure to government contracts, regulatory approvals, and tax scrutiny. This creates what Ninan terms "structural disincentives" for aggressive reporting on government controversies.

The financial dependence of media organisations on government advertising represents another critical vulnerability. According to data from the Bureau of Outreach and Communication, the central government spent over ₹6,200 crore on advertising in 2023-24, distributed across print, television, and digital media. Investigative reports by The Reporters' Collective, published in September 2024, revealed significant disparities in advertising allocation, with media organisations perceived as critical of the government receiving substantially reduced shares. The report documented that several newspapers that had published investigative stories on government corruption saw their government advertising revenue decline by 40 to 60 per cent in subsequent quarters.

Legal intimidation represents a third mechanism of media control. Journalists and media organisations face an unprecedented volume of defamation suits, many filed by ruling party politicians and business persons perceived as close to the government. According to data compiled by the Free Speech Collective, over 500 defamation and criminal cases were filed against journalists between 2014 and 2024, compared to approximately 150 in the previous decade. While most of these cases ultimately fail in court, the legal costs and time required to defend them create significant pressure on both individual journalists and media organisations.

More coercive still has been the deployment of enforcement and investigative agencies against media organisations and journalists. Several high-profile cases illustrate this pattern. In February 2024, the Income Tax department conducted searches at the premises of BBC India following the broadcaster's documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots. While the government maintained these were routine tax investigations, media watchdogs characterised them as intimidation tactics. Similarly, the Enforcement Directorate's investigation into NewsClick, an independent digital news portal, led to the arrest of its editor-in-chief and several journalists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in October 2023, sending chills through the independent media sector.

Despite these pressures, independent digital media platforms continue to report aggressively on electoral integrity and government accountability. Publications such as The Wire, Scroll. In Newslaundry and Alt News have extensively covered allegations of EVM manipulation, electoral irregularities, and the broader questions surrounding democratic backsliding. However, their reach remains limited compared to mainstream television channels and newspapers. According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024, independent digital news platforms collectively reach approximately 8 per cent of India's news-consuming population, compared to over 60 per cent for mainstream television news.

The question of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's refusal to hold formal press conferences has become emblematic of broader concerns about governmental accountability. Since assuming office in May 2014, Modi has not held a single open press conference in India where journalists could ask unscripted questions. This represents a stark departure from democratic convention in India and internationally. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, despite being criticised for his reserved public persona, held 15 press conferences during his tenure. Atal Bihari Vajpayee held regular press conferences and engaged frequently with journalists. Indeed, every Indian Prime Minister since independence had maintained the tradition of periodic press conferences until Modi.

The Modi government has instead relied on alternative communication strategies. The Prime Minister's monthly Mann Ki Baat radio addresses, while reaching large audiences, involve no questioning or accountability mechanism. His social media presence, particularly on Twitter (now X), allows direct communication with the public but similarly precludes interrogation. When Modi does give interviews, they are typically with friendly interviewers who avoid uncomfortable questions. His joint press appearance with then-BJP President Amit Shah during the 2019 election campaign, where Shah answered all questions while Modi remained silent, attracted particular criticism.

Government spokespersons defend this approach by arguing that the Prime Minister communicates through multiple channels and that formal press conferences are an outdated format. However, constitutional experts and political scientists argue that press conferences serve a unique accountability function. Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta of Ashoka University has argued that "the refusal to face open questioning represents a fundamental contempt for democratic accountability and signals that the Prime Minister considers himself above scrutiny."

The accumulation of these concerns has led several international observers and democracy watchdogs to question whether India is experiencing democratic backsliding. The V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg, in its Democracy Report 2024, reclassified India from an "electoral democracy" to an "electoral autocracy," a categorisation it applies to countries where elections occur but democratic safeguards have substantially eroded. The report highlighted declining institutional independence, restrictions on civil society, media unfreedom, and growing religious and ethnic polarisation as key indicators of India's democratic regression.

Sweden's International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) included India in its list of "backsliding democracies" for the third consecutive year in 2024. The organisation's assessment pointed to "the weakening of civil liberties, increased control over civil society organisations through regulatory mechanisms, and the use of sedition and anti-terror laws to curb dissent" as evidence of democratic erosion. Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2024 report downgraded India's status to "Partly Free" from "Free," citing similar concerns.

These assessments have provoked strong rebuttals from the Indian government. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has repeatedly described such reports as reflecting "Western bias" and failing to understand Indian democracy's unique character and scale. Government officials point to India's high voter turnout, regular elections at national and state levels, and peaceful transfers of power as evidence of democratic vitality. They argue that organisations like V-Dem and Freedom House apply inappropriate standards derived from Western liberal democracies to judge India.

However, domestic voices across the ideological spectrum have echoed concerns about institutional weakening. The Supreme Court Bar Association passed a resolution in January 2025 expressing concern about "executive interference in judicial appointments and the erosion of judicial independence." The Editors Guild of India has repeatedly condemned attacks on press freedom and called for the repeal of provisions of the Information Technology Act and the criminal defamation law that are used to intimidate journalists.

Several ongoing cases before the Supreme Court speak to these institutional tensions. The challenge to the electoral bonds scheme, which allowed anonymous corporate donations to political parties, resulted in the Court striking down the mechanism in February 2024 as unconstitutional. The judgment revealed that the BJP received over ₹6,000 crore through electoral bonds between 2018 and 2024, representing approximately 54 per cent of all funds donated through the scheme. Opposition parties had long argued that the scheme enabled quid pro quo corruption, allowing companies to make large donations in exchange for government contracts or regulatory favours.

The case regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners remains pending before a five-judge Constitutional Bench. Following a March 2023 Supreme Court judgment that required a selection committee including the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and Leader of Opposition to appoint Election Commissioners, Parliament passed legislation in August 2023 replacing the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister. Opposition parties and civil society organisations challenged this amendment as negating the Court's judgment and compromising the Commission's independence. The case has been partially heard, with arguments likely to conclude in 2026.

Perhaps most significantly, a batch of petitions challenging the opacity of electoral processes seeks to compel the Election Commission to adopt enhanced transparency measures. These include demands for voter-verifiable paper ballots to be introduced alongside or instead of EVMs, for 100 per cent VVPAT verification, for public disclosure of detailed voting data at the polling station level, and for release of EVM source code for independent audit. The Election Commission has resisted these demands, arguing that EVMs have been thoroughly tested and proven reliable through multiple elections since 2004.

Technical experts remain divided on EVM vulnerability. Former Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has consistently defended EVMs as tamper-proof, noting that they are standalone machines without wireless capabilities and are subject to multiple layers of verification. However, cybersecurity experts including Professor Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan, who examined Indian EVMs in 2010, have argued that no electronic voting system can be considered entirely secure. Halderman's analysis suggested that while difficult, manipulation of EVMs is theoretically possible if bad actors gain physical access to machines before or during elections.

The debate over ballot papers versus EVMs has acquired partisan overtones, with opposition parties increasingly demanding a return to paper ballots while the ruling establishment defends EVMs. This polarisation has made rational assessment more difficult. International best practices suggest that while electronic voting can be secure if properly implemented, verifiable paper audit trails should be mandatory and comprehensively checked. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands abandoned electronic voting machines and returned to paper ballots after security concerns emerged. The United States uses a hybrid system in most states, with electronic machines that produce paper ballots which can be audited.

The question of whether India is transitioning from democracy to kakistocracy—literally, government by the worst or least qualified—represents the most alarmist interpretation of current trends. While this characterisation may be hyperbolic, concerns about the quality of governance and institutional integrity are legitimate. The concentration of power, weakening of checks and balances, and declining space for dissent represent warning signs that democracies ignore at their peril.

Several specific developments illustrate institutional stress. The use of central investigative agencies—the Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, and Income Tax Department—against opposition politicians has reached unprecedented levels. According to data compiled by the People's Union for Civil Liberties, over 95 per cent of politicians investigated by the ED between 2014 and 2024 belonged to opposition parties. Moreover, numerous opposition leaders facing investigation have subsequently joined the BJP, after which cases against them were closed or proceedings languished. This pattern has led to accusations of "investigative agencies being weaponised" for political purposes.

The functioning of Parliament has deteriorated markedly. According to PRS Legislative Research data, Parliamentary sessions have become shorter, with the budget session of 2024 being the briefest in 20 years. The proportion of Bills referred to Parliamentary committees for detailed examination declined from 71 per cent during 2009-2014 to just 16 per cent during 2019-2024. Important legislation, including amendments to the election law, criminal codes, and telecommunications regulation, was passed with minimal Parliamentary scrutiny. Opposition protests and demands for debates on sensitive issues have often been met with suspensions of members rather than discussion.

The civil society space has contracted significantly through regulatory mechanisms. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) has been used to cancel the licences of thousands of NGOs, including Oxfam India, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, and Lawyers Collective, effectively choking their funding and operations. Between 2014 and 2024, approximately 16,000 organisations lost their FCRA registration, compared to 4,000 in the previous decade. While the government argues this ensures proper oversight and prevents foreign interference, critics contend it is designed to silence independent voices.

Looking ahead, several reforms could address these democratic deficits. Electoral reforms should include comprehensive VVPAT verification, greater transparency in political funding following the electoral bonds judgment, and reform of the Election Commission's appointment process to ensure genuine independence. The National Election Watch coalition has proposed a detailed blueprint including these measures and state funding of elections to reduce corporate influence.

Media reforms require attention to ownership concentration, with cross-media ownership restrictions that prevent excessive consolidation. Protection mechanisms for journalists, including a dedicated law criminalising violence against media persons and protection from vexatious litigation, are essential. The Press Council of India, currently a toothless body, needs statutory strengthening to effectively adjudicate media ethics while protecting press freedom. Government advertising should be distributed according to transparent, objective criteria related to circulation and viewership rather than political considerations.

Accountability mechanisms must be revitalised. The institution of regular press conferences by the Prime Minister and senior ministers should be normalised. Parliamentary Question Hour must be treated with the seriousness it deserves, with ministers providing substantive answers rather than evasive responses. The Right to Information Act, significantly weakened by 2019 amendments that undermined the autonomy of Information Commissioners, requires restoration to its original strength. The Lokpal (ombudsman) at the central level and Lokayuktas in states need to be empowered with adequate resources and independence to investigate corruption at high levels.

Judicial reforms are equally critical. The Collegium system for judicial appointments, while intended to protect judicial independence from executive interference, has come under criticism for opacity and accusations of favouritism. A more transparent appointment mechanism that balances judicial independence with democratic accountability could involve a reformed Judicial Appointments Commission, provided it maintains primacy for the judiciary in appointments. Reducing case backlogs through additional judicial infrastructure and positions is essential for ensuring timely justice.

International experience offers valuable lessons. Democracies that have successfully resisted backsliding have typically done so through vigilant institutions, active civil society, independent media, and engaged citizenry. South Korea's recovery from democratic crisis in the 2010s was enabled by massive public protests, assertive judicial intervention, and media exposure of corruption. Taiwan's democratic consolidation occurred through institutional reforms that enhanced transparency and accountability. Conversely, democracies that failed to resist backsliding—Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela—experienced precisely the institutional weakening now concerning observers in India.

The present controversy transcends partisan politics. Regardless of one's political preferences, certain institutional safeguards and democratic practices must be preserved. Free and fair elections verified through transparent mechanisms, media freedom to investigate and report without fear, governmental accountability through regular questioning and Parliamentary oversight, and judicial independence to check executive overreach represent the minimum requirements for democratic governance.

The authenticity of specific allegations regarding EVM manipulation remains contested and requires thorough, independent investigation. However, the Election Commission's reluctance to embrace maximum transparency is difficult to justify. If EVMs are indeed tamper-proof, comprehensive VVPAT verification and public disclosure of detailed data should pose no threat. The Commission's defensive posture and refusal to release information like CCTV footage, even when ordered by courts, undermines public confidence regardless of the system's actual integrity.

Media silence—whether driven by structural economic pressures, corporate ownership dynamics, or direct intimidation—represents a fundamental democratic failure. The fourth estate's essential function is holding power accountable. When media organisations prioritise profits, political access, or safety over truth-telling, democracy suffers. While independent digital platforms partially fill this void, their limited reach means most citizens remain unaware of crucial controversies and evidence of governmental failings.

The Prime Minister's persistent refusal to face unscripted questions embodies a broader culture of unaccountability. Democratic leadership requires explaining policies, defending decisions, and engaging with criticism. The transition from dialogue to monologue, from answering to proclaiming, marks a troubling shift in political culture. When combined with Parliament's marginalisation, investigative agencies' politicisation, and dissent's criminalisation, a worrying pattern emerges.

India stands at a crossroads. The country's democratic founding, constitutional framework, and institutional inheritance remain substantial assets. Indian democracy has weathered earlier crises—the Emergency of 1975-77 representing the most severe—and emerged resilient. The question is whether contemporary institutional erosion will trigger similar corrective responses or whether democratic backsliding will continue until fundamental transformation of the system's character occurs.

The answer depends substantially on citizen engagement. Democratic vibrancy ultimately rests not merely on institutions but on citizens' active insistence on their rights and vigilant protection of democratic norms. Media organisations must summon the courage to prioritise truth over profit. Opposition parties must present credible alternatives rather than merely opposing. The judiciary must assert its independence and protect constitutional values even against majoritarian pressure. Civil society must continue amplifying marginalised voices and documenting rights violations despite harassment.

Most fundamentally, ordinary citizens must recognise that democracy requires constant cultivation. Voting every five years, while necessary, is insufficient. Democracy needs informed citizens who demand accountability, consume diverse news sources, resist polarisation, and insist on institutional integrity. The present crisis offers an opportunity for democratic renewal, but only if stakeholders collectively commit to strengthening rather than exploiting democratic institutions for partisan advantage.

The allegations of electoral fraud may or may not be proven in court. The media's silence may continue or give way to greater courage. The government may become more transparent or further entrench opacity. These outcomes remain uncertain. What is certain is that Indian democracy's trajectory depends on choices made now by institutions, organisations, and individuals. The question is not whether India can remain democratic but whether Indians choose to keep it so.

SOURCES@: The Tribune, News on Air

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/1fb4ae_48b00b9fd61a48a5a2992397d4f5e1bc/720p/mp4/file.mp4