The 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, held in multiple phases concluding in November, have sparked intense debate over the fairness of India's democratic processes. As one of the most populous states in the country, Bihar's polls often serve as a barometer for national political trends. With the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, securing a decisive victory, questions have arisen regarding potential irregularities. It is not intended to endorse any political viewpoint but to educate readers on the complexities of electoral systems, the role of institutions like the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the safeguards essential for upholding democratic principles.
To understand the context, it is crucial to recall Bihar's electoral landscape. The state has a history of volatile politics, marked by issues such as poverty, migration, and caste-based alliances. In 2025, the elections pitted the incumbent NDA government against a coalition of opposition parties, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Congress, and others. Voter turnout was reported at around 57%, with over 7.4 crore eligible voters. However, post-election analyses have highlighted discrepancies that raise concerns about transparency. These include claims of voter list manipulations, financial inducements, and procedural lapses. By examining these points sequentially, we can better appreciate the mechanisms that govern elections and the potential vulnerabilities within them.
One prominent allegation centres on a government scheme that transferred funds to women's self-help groups shortly before the polls. Launched in September 2025, the initiative aimed to provide ₹10,000 to one woman per eligible family to start small businesses, with promises of further assistance up to ₹1 lakh. Approximately 1.25 crore women received these transfers, many via groups known as 'Jeevika Didis'. Critics argue that the timing—transfers occurring on 31 October and 7 November, just days before the first and second phases of voting—violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which prohibits new financial disbursements during election periods to prevent undue influence.
The MCC, enforced by the ECI since 6 October 2025 in Bihar, explicitly bars governments from announcing or implementing schemes that could sway voters. Proponents of the scheme view it as a legitimate welfare measure, effective in empowering rural women in India's poorest state, where per capita income lags behind the national average. However, the proximity to polling dates has led to accusations of 'legalised bribery'. Historical precedents support this scrutiny: in 2004, the ECI halted a farmer aid scheme in Tamil Nadu despite its prior existence; in 2011, free colour TVs were barred during elections; and more recently, in March 2024, Andhra Pradesh's ₹14,000 crore transfers were stopped. In November 2023, Telangana's per-acre farmer aid was similarly blocked when linked to electoral promises.
Adding to the complexity, over 1.8 lakh Jeevika Didis were reportedly deployed as election volunteers, potentially allowing them to influence voters directly. This raises questions about impartiality in polling duties. While the government maintains these were standard welfare efforts, the ECI's decision not to intervene contrasts with its past actions, prompting calls for greater accountability. Educating on this, it's worth noting that India's electoral laws, rooted in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, emphasise neutrality. Violations can lead to charges of corrupt practices, but enforcement relies on the ECI's discretion, highlighting the need for robust oversight mechanisms.
A second area of concern involves duplicate voters across states. Investigative reports and social media evidence have surfaced cases where individuals voted in Bihar despite having cast ballots in Delhi, Haryana, or elsewhere. For instance, BJP workers like Nagendra Kumar and Ajit Jha publicly shared photos of voting in multiple locations, sometimes with multiple Epic (Elector's Photo Identity Card) numbers—a clear breach of ECI rules, which prohibit dual registrations.
Fact-checking organisations, such as Alt News, identified at least seven such instances from public posts alone. This suggests a broader issue: if visible cases exist, how many undetected ones persist? The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, conducted from June to September 2025, aimed to eliminate duplicates. Yet, according to a detailed investigation by The Reporters' Collective, the final list retained 14.35 lakh suspected duplicates, including 3.42 lakh with identical details. Thousands had three or more entries statewide.
The ECI has access to software for detecting duplicates, used successfully in prior elections. However, guidelines were allegedly bypassed in 2025, leading to questions about intent. When queried, ECI officials cited the MCC to deflect, but no comprehensive response followed. To contextualise, India's voter registration system relies on self-declaration and periodic revisions. With migration rampant—Bihar sees millions working out-of-state—duplicates can occur innocently, but systematic failures erode trust. Adding depth, the National Population Register and Aadhaar integration could mitigate this, though privacy concerns have delayed full implementation. This incident underscores the importance of technological audits in maintaining electoral rolls' accuracy.
Thirdly, allegations point to special trains organised to transport voters from Haryana to Bihar. On 3 November 2025, at least four such trains were reportedly run, facilitating thousands to vote. Supreme Court lawyer Kapil Sibal highlighted this in a press conference, questioning if these were genuine voters or part of a coordinated effort. Media reports, including from ABP News, featured passengers claiming BJP covered costs, including tickets and meals.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, providing free transport to voters constitutes a corrupt practice, even within a city. Interstate arrangements amplify this violation. The BJP defends it as aiding legitimate voters, but critics, including Aam Aadmi Party's Saurav Bharadwaj and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, allege it ties into SIR manipulations, where loyal voters were preserved and mobilised. The ECI's inaction, despite awareness, contrasts with its interventions in other transport-related complaints. Historically, similar tactics have been penalised, as in cases of bus hires during local polls. This raises educational points on voter mobility: while encouraging participation is positive, subsidised transport risks undue influence, especially in economically disadvantaged regions like Bihar, where travel costs deter many.
A fourth allegation involves changes to CCTV footage rules at polling booths. CCTV recordings are vital for verifying voter turnout, preventing impersonation, and resolving disputes. Under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, election papers—including footage—were previously accessible via fee-based requests. In December 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the ECI to provide Haryana election footage to advocate Mehmood Pracha, affirming its inclusion.
However, shortly after, the central government amended the rules in early 2025, excluding CCTV footage from accessible documents and barring courts from mandating its release. In June 2025, the ECI added that footage would be deleted after 45 days unless challenged in court. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar justified this by citing privacy for women voters and the impracticality of reviewing vast footage—estimating 3,600 years for one person viewing eight hours daily.
Critics argue this hinders transparency, as teams could review footage efficiently. Former CEC Rajiv Kumar echoed volume concerns, but alternatives like AI-assisted analysis exist. This amendment followed Supreme Court efforts to reform ECI appointments, replacing the Chief Justice with a Union Minister in the selection panel—a move seen as reducing independence. Educationally, CCTV in elections, mandated since 2019 in sensitive booths, enhances accountability. Deleting evidence prematurely could impede post-election audits, vital in a country with over 10 lakh polling stations.
The fifth point concerns voter deletions during the SIR. From June to September 2025, the ECI revised Bihar's voter list, reducing it from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore names—deleting about 47 lakh. However, population projections suggest 8.22 crore eligible voters by September, implying 80 lakh missing, or 10% of the electorate.
Reports from The Wire indicate disproportionate deletions in opposition strongholds like Seemanchal (7.7% vs. statewide 5.9%) and among minorities. Muslims, comprising 16.9% of Bihar's population, formed 24.7% of initial deletions and 33% in the final list. Similar patterns affected Dalits and Adivasis, groups often supporting opposition. Videos and complaints show voters with IDs denied ballots, claiming names were absent or votes pre-cast.
The ECI attributes deletions to cleaning dead or shifted voters, but lack of transparency fuels suspicions. Petitions by groups like the Association for Democratic Reforms challenged SIR pre-implementation, but the Supreme Court allowed continuation, ordering deleted names' publication for corrections. Hearings persist post-elections, highlighting judicial delays. Adding context, India's voter rolls grow annually by 2-3%, but aggressive revisions risk disenfranchisement. Best practices from countries like Australia, with automatic enrolment, could inform reforms.
Finally, broader claims of ECI bias emerge from patterns in election scheduling and enforcement. In 2021 West Bengal polls, eight phases allegedly favoured BJP campaigning. In 2024 Lok Sabha elections, religious appeals went unpunished. The 2023 appointment law, excluding the Chief Justice, is criticised for politicisation. Coincidences, like CEC Gyanesh Kumar's family members receiving key posts post-SIR announcement, invite scrutiny, though unproven.
Post-election, despite these allegations, the NDA's win is attributed to strong organisation and welfare appeal. Opposition leaders like Sanjay Singh warned of hijacking three months prior. Calls for boycotts were mooted, echoing Gandhian non-cooperation, but not pursued.
In 2025, these issues reflect evolving manipulation tactics amid technological advances. With SIR ongoing in 12 states, pending court rulings, and potential legislative overrides, vigilance is key. Implications extend beyond parties: eroded trust undermines democracy, diverting focus from issues like pollution, infrastructure, and education.
Educating citizens on electoral laws empowers demands for reforms, such as independent ECI audits, blockchain for voter lists, or international observers. Ultimately, sustaining India's democracy requires collective commitment to transparency, ensuring elections reflect public will, not manipulations.
Post a Comment