Vote Chori? Allegations and Proper answers

 *Vote Chori? Allegations and Proper answers*

- Dayanand Nene 

• My good friend Jitendra Khanvilkar sent me a list of questions related to the Vote Chori allegations and asked me to reply to them as a Psephologist and Political Analyst. 

• I sincerely thank Jitendra because his exhaustive list of questions gave me an opportunity to study the dynamics and prepare my unbiased and honest answer to them.

• I am first posting the questions/ allegations and then the answers.

This post is exhaustive but trust me - it will make interesting reading:

*Allegations*

Mr Nene,

• Maharashtra vote percentage changed 14% in favour of BJP mahayuti in just 5 months .. though Narendra Modi was more popular than Fadnavis and Shinde Pawar .. 

• Such a vote reversal never happened in the history of elections in India 

• As a political analyst and poll predictor do you believe this ? 

• As a poll predictor, you projected 350 plus seats for BJP ( I have seen that survey )  in LS in your final poll prediction which came down to 240 in reality. 

My own prediction for BJP was @ 210 . If ECI was fair and if no vote Chori had taken place in 79 LS seats as per Vote for Democracy ( an organisation published its detailed report soon after results ) it would have been below 180 .. 

• Then what turned around in Vidhan Sabha election so much in just 5 months.. 🤔

Only Ladki Bahin..🤔 but that was not opposed by opposition either .. so few questions here .. since ECI and Modi won't dare take these questions in first place asking you..  

• Why the added 32 Lakhs voters ( in just 5 months )  and 76 lakh voting post 5.00 pm in Maharashtra ? Why the difference of 7.8 % in just a few hours post voting. Historically it's never beyond 1% to 1.5%

• Why should ECI  be elected without CJI in committee ? Why change the rule? 

• Why ECI should not be charged criminally ? Why such law was formed ? 

• Why no video footage after 45 days ? Don't you find it laughable of ECI reply of behen betiyonki ijjat ? 🤦🏻‍♂️😄

• Why no appeal can be made on results after certain date to polls ? 

• Why no digital data was provided to others when Anurag Thakur can get it in a day  ? 

• Why Rahul Gandhi has to file an affidavit while Anurag Thakur ( who points out the same voter list fraud) don't have to ? 

• What happened to 18000 affidavits given by SP in UP ? 

• Why freeze Congress accounts just before polls and then freed after results ? 

• Why similar looking symbols of opposition distributed to independent candidates ?  Udayan Raje won just because of that ? 

• Three seats in Maharashtra Amol Kirtikar ( EC officer flip-flop ), Shashikant Shinde ( symbol ) and Vinayak Raut ( open money distribution by Rane ) were lost by the deeds of EC. And I dare say whole of Orrisa and Bihar ( with added voters ) 

• Why Shivsena and NCP symbols were not frozen and given it to rebel factions if not to original ? 

• Why Ramanna, Lalit and Chandrachud sat on Shivsena case for 3 years ? Just by lingering ( even Gawai now ) on it making it neither legal nor illegal.  It gave rebel factions the sanctity ( as desired by BJP) and legal perception. 

• Why was there no celebration after 232 seats won by Mahayuti ? 

Hope to get logical answers from you on this 🙏🏻

*My Answers*

1. *“Maharashtra vote percentage changed 14% in favour of BJP/Mahayuti in just 5 months” — is that true?*

   No. The numbers don’t support a 14 percentage-point jump for the Mahayuti between the Lok Sabha and the Assembly polls in Maharashtra. In the 2024 Lok Sabha in Maharashtra the NDA/Mahayuti-type bloc polled about *43.55%* (BJP \~26.18% + allies); in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly result the Mahayuti got *49.30%* of the vote — a rise of about *5.7 percentage points*, not 14. 

The BJP alone moved from 26.18% (LS) to 26.77% (Assembly) — essentially flat. 

So the “14% swing in five months” is incorrect unless you’re comparing two different, non-comparable baselines (or using a wrong data source). 

2. *“Such a vote reversal never happened in Indian history”*

   Votes often differ between Lok Sabha and state polls because voters treat national and state contests differently (different candidates, local issues, alliances, turnout patterns). A 5–6 percentage-point change between a national and subsequent state poll is *common*; larger swings can also happen regionally depending on alliances/candidates. 

So the claim “never happened” is false — and the real swing in Maharashtra (≈5.7 pp for the alliance) is well within plausible bounds.

3. *“Poll predictor projected 350+ seats for BJP then reality was 240; if ECI was fair and no vote-chori then BJP would be below 180” — do you believe this?”*

   Two separate points:

• Many exit-polls and some commentators including myself *did* project a 350+ NDA result before counting; those exit-polls turned out to overestimate BJP/NDA seats. Polls and exit-polls can and do err — sampling, weighting, late swings, respondents hiding their true vote or non-response bias are common reasons. Independent post-mortems by pollsters and journalists admit methodology errors in 2024. 

The debacle of BJP in UP due to vote polarization was where we all went wrong.

We failed to gauge correctly the impact of the M Y and Dalit vote consolidation against the BJP.

So the gap between pre-count projections and the official 240 seats is explained primarily by *polling misjudgment*, not by automatic proof of large-scale fraud.

• Extraordinary claims (like “if there were no fraud BJP would be <180”) require extraordinary evidence. Public assertions that tens of seats were stolen must be supported with constituency-level proofs (affidavits, chain-of-custody problems, court evidence showing VVPAT/EVM tampering or mass bogus voting). 

So far the official route has been evidence requests and court petitions — not proof accepted by the courts or the ECI. (EC asked for affidavits from complainants; failure to produce admissible evidence weakens the claim.) 

*And it is presumptous and exaggeration that an allegation made by an opposition is correct*.

4. *“What turned around in Vidhan Sabha in 5 months?”*

   A few concrete, non-fraud explanations that routinely change outcomes between national and state polls:

• *Different candidates and local issues:* State elections focus on local governance, local leaders and farmer/urban issues — these produce different swings than national elections.

• *Alliance arithmetic:* parties that contested together (or split) change seat calculations and vote transfers. Mahayuti’s seat distribution and pact dynamics helped convert vote share into seats.

• *Turnout differentials & targeted campaigning* (booth management, local ground game) can magnify small vote-share changes into large seat swings.

• *Post-LS political environment:* Campaigns, defections, cash transfers, local grievances or benefits between May and November can shift votes. These mundane mechanisms explain most “snap” reversals elsewhere too.

5. *“Why the added 32 lakh voters (in 5 months) and 76 lakh voting post 5.00 pm? Why 7.8% difference in a few hours?”*

   Facts & reporting:

• Opposition leaders (and some media) alleged *large additions* to Maharashtra rolls — numbers cited in reports vary (Congress alleged 39–47 lakh additions in some reports). Those are serious allegations and have been publicly raised. 

• However, there are number of examples even from Congress times where sustained voter registration campaigns have resulted in an increase in number of voters in the interim of two elections. 

Here, between Loksabha and Vidhan Sabha, over 50k RSS workers across the state worked tirelessly to enrol new voters.

• The Election Commission responded that increases in turnout during the day and additions between revision cycles can be *normal* (urbanization, migrants getting enrolled, finalization of rolls, postal/other ballots counted later), and described the observed rise in turnout within normal operational patterns. The ECI has also asked complainants to provide documentary proof when they make precise charge. That remains the procedural position. 

• Large additions appearing suspiciously close to polling need constituency-level forensic evidence (who was enrolled, which forms/IDs used, IP logs for online registrations, verification of deleted/added entries). 

Some local petitions and FIRs were filed (e.g., Rajura allegations) but wide, definitive proof across dozens of seats has not been judicially established. If you have constituency-level audited data (Form 6/7 entries, registration timestamps, IPs) the correct forum is a court or a properly framed election petition/complaint. 

6. *“Why ECI should be elected without CJI in committee? Why change the rule?”*

   Background & status:

• Parliament passed the CEC & Other ECs Act 2023, which changed the selection mechanism and removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee. 

This law has been *challenged in the Supreme Court*; petitions argue that it weakens ECI independence and contradicts prior Supreme Court guidance calling for a committee including the CJI. Courts have been hearing these challenges. So this is a legitimate legal controversy — not a proven “conspiracy."

7. *“Why ECI should not be charged criminally? Why such law was formed?”*

   • The ECI is a constitutional body. Criminal charges against officers require prima facie evidence of intentional crime by named officials and must be filed in a court with jurisdiction; mere political criticism is not the same as a criminal case. 

The legal safeguards around the ECI exist to protect both officials and the electoral process — but if evidence of individual criminality exists, courts and police can investigate. So the right remedy for alleged malfeasance is *documented evidence → FIR / judicial petition*, not public sloganing.

8. *“Why no video footage after 45 days? ECI reply ‘behen betiyon ki ijjat’ — laughable?”*

   • The ECI revised guidelines to require destruction of polling-station CCTV/webcast footage after *45 days* unless an election petition is pending; that move sparked legal and Opposition criticism and court challenges because it reduces the retention window for evidence. 

Critics say 45 days is too short for independent audits; supporters cite privacy and risk of misuse. 

The policy change is real and contested in courts and civil-society petitions. So the criticism is valid as a transparency concern — but the answer is: *policy change happened and is being legally challenged*, it is *not* proof of fraud by itself. 

9. *“Why no appeal after a certain date to polls?”*

   • Election law builds *finality* into the process. Under the Representation of the People Act a candidate/elector must present an *election petition* in the High Court within the statutory time limit (case law and practice treat this as a tight window — courts refer to the Act’s filing/delay rules and often emphasize strict compliance). 

The Supreme Court has declined to expand that limitation in related petitions. That’s why “appeals” after the deadline are generally not allowed — the law aims to avoid perpetual uncertainty about mandates. If there is evidence of criminality, separate criminal proceedings can still be pursued. 

10. *“Why no digital data provided to others when Anurag Thakur can get it in a day?”*

    • If a Union minister or any official obtains data quickly, critics allege preferential access. The ECI has rules about release of electoral rolls and data; parties can get certified extracts by formal application. Where there are allegations of undue access, the remedy is legal complaint. There are open demands from opposition for machine-readable rolls and for ECI to publish audit-friendly data; that debate is ongoing.

11. *“Why Rahul Gandhi must file an affidavit but Anurag Thakur doesn’t?”*

    • Procedurally the ECI asked Rahul to submit a written affidavit backing public allegations; the ECI says a formal signed statement is the minimum to trigger action. Opposition says double standards apply because BJP leaders weren’t similarly required in other cases. Media reported that ECI served notice to Rahul while critics asked why Anurag Thakur was not served the same way. 

That is a valid procedural fairness complaint — politically potent, but again it’s different from proof of voter theft. Courts/ECI replies are the fora for remedy. 

12. *“What happened to 18,000 affidavits given by SP in UP?”*

    • I can’t answer every countable claim without the specific filing/petition reference. State parties (and individuals) have submitted large dossiers/representations about voter irregularities in various states; courts and election authorities evaluate them under law. 

If you give me the actual SP dossier or an FIR/court case number, I’ll study what the official finding was. (As a general point: quantity of affidavits matters less than their legal admissibility — courts require specifics, documents, witness competence, and linkage to a constituency outcome.) 

13. *“Why freeze Congress accounts before polls and then freed after results?”*

    • The Enforcement Directorate/Income-tax actions against political parties and leaders have happened in multiple cycles; e. g. the well documented Congress account freezes in 2024. 

Law enforcement agencies say actions are for tax/financial investigations; parties allege political motivation. Whether a freeze was timed for political advantage is a political allegation that courts and independent investigators can examine.

14. *“Why similar looking symbols of opposition distributed to independents (e.g., Udayanraje)?”*

    • There were multiple media reports during 2024 on *independents being allotted symbols similar to party symbols* (e.g., the “trumpet/tutari” confusion affecting NCP/Satara etc.). 

Several local leaders said those similar symbols changed outcomes in close seats; parties filed protests. 

This is a valid, real, documented operational problem in some constituencies and a legitimate grievance — but,  not, by itself, proof of organized mass theft but certainly a concrete mechanism that can and did confuse some voters. Parties have taken legal steps in individual constituencies.

However, such ploys have been used since 1952 till date - most of the time when Congress was in power.

15. *“Seats lost because of EC errors: Amol Kirtikar, Shashikant Shinde, Vinayak Raut — and whole of Odisha/Bihar”*

    • Individual contestants have alleged errors in specific constituencies (Amol Kirtikar raised objections, NCP/others raised the Satara symbol issue, Vinayak Raut has written to EC about his constituency). 

These are *seat-level disputes*: they must be proved in court with specific evidence (RO’s forms, VVPAT reconciliation, Form-20s, chain-of-custody documents).

 Several seat-level petitions/demands for probe were filed — that’s the correct legal path. But isolated operational mistakes, RO errors, or symbol confusion are not the proof as a proven pan-India manufactured takeover of 79 seats. Each allegation must be litigated individually. 

16. *“Why Shiv Sena and NCP symbols were not frozen/given to rebel factions?”*

    • When parties split, symbol allotment follows the party-registration and recognition rules, and sometimes long legal fights (and pendency in the EC or courts) leave two factions claiming legitimacy. 

The EC’s handling of party splits and symbol allotments has been legally contested and debated; courts have sometimes taken years to decide party identity disputes, which creates electoral confusion. That is a structural issue (and politically consequential) — not necessarily evidence of deliberate theft, but it is a policy and administrative problem with obvious electoral effects. 

17. *“Why Ramanna, Lalit and Chandrachud sat on Shiv Sena case for 3 years?”*

    • The Supreme Court and benches handle many complex constitutional and party-identity matters; some cases take long to be heard or decided. Delay can create a de-facto legitimacy for splinter groups during elections. Critics argue that delay gives strategic advantage to one side; defenders point to case complexity and judicial procedures. This is a legitimate critique of pace of justice, not direct proof of fraud. 

18. *“Why there was no celebration after 232 seats won by Mahayuti?”*

    • I assume you mean lack of exuberant public rejoicing. Politics and optics vary: parties choose how loudly they celebrate based on national optics, coalition arithmetic, internal discipline, or desire to avoid provoking opposition. That’s political theatre, not proof of vote tampering. 

*Bottom-line :*

• *Many of the charges you listed are legitimate operational or transparency concerns* (rapid additions to rolls, similar symbols, 45-day footage rule, law changing selection committee). These deserve forensic audit and court examination. 

• *But the extraordinary claim that a coordinated nationwide “vote chori” converted a projected 350+ to 240 or that BJP would’ve been <180 absent fraud is not established by the evidence currently in public domain. Polling errors, alliance changes, turnout and local dynamics explain much of the difference — and courts/ECI have asked for specific affidavits/evidence where allegations were made. 

• *If the opposition (or anyone) truly has verifiable, constituency-level material evidence* (signed witness affidavits with specific counts, Form-20 mismatches, VVPAT/EVM chain-of-custody failures, IP logs for bogus registrations) --  the right, legally effective step is: (a) lodge FIRs where criminality is alleged and (b) file election petitions and supporting documents in the High Court within the statutory window. The system gives remedies — they must be used with concrete proof.

Trust that this answers all your queries.

- Dayanand Nene 

  19/9/25