AAP accuses EC of ignoring ‘vote theft’ in Delhi, poll body denies inaction
text_fields
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has accused the Election Commission of India (EC) of ignoring attempts to manipulate voter lists in Delhi ahead of the 2025 assembly elections.
The poll body, however, insists it acted promptly and transparently.
At a press conference on Friday (September 19), Delhi AAP chief Saurabh Bharadwaj alleged that the EC “stood complicit in its inaction” after then-chief minister Atishi raised concerns in January. On January 5, Atishi wrote to the EC about a surge of voter addition and deletion applications in party leader Arvind Kejriwal’s New Delhi constituency.
According to AAP, Atishi flagged 6,166 deletion applications, with some residents denying they had filed them. Despite repeated letters, the party says no investigation followed. Bharadwaj alleged: “This is an organised racket. Our democracy is being looted in a thoroughly organised manner.”
He added that Atishi also wrote to the EC on January 9, but her requests for details were denied under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. When the party sought updates in August, the commission responded that the records had “no relationship to any public activity or interest” and that “no action is pending” on Atishi’s complaints.
In response, the EC pointed out that it had issued a detailed reply in January. It said Delhi’s chief electoral officer had confirmed that facts were being verified and that a report by New Delhi district electoral officer (DEO) Sunny Singh was submitted and shared with Atishi in a 76-page response on January 13.
Singh’s report contested AAP’s figures, stating that while Atishi cited 13,276 voter addition applications between October and January, the EC’s ERONET system recorded 6,659. Of the 6,166 deletion requests flagged, ERONET showed 5,971.
Between December 15 and January 2, 3,956 voter addition applications were filed; 327 were processed, with 64% rejected due to insufficient information. Singh argued this high rejection rate reflected “multi-level scrutiny as well as field verification.” He added that complaints were lodged in cases of false information.
On deletions, Singh noted impersonation concerns but said telephonic verification of mobile numbers confirmed they belonged to the applicants. Some individuals who initially denied submitting forms later admitted they had. In doubtful cases, police complaints were filed.
Singh also rejected Atishi’s repeated requests for applicant details, citing privacy and safety concerns. “All actions taken by the election machinery adhered to the law,” he concluded, dismissing allegations of inaction or lack of transparency.
Bharadwaj, however, challenged the EC to provide proof of criminal action. “Where is the FIR for impersonation or fraud? Were there any arrests or chargesheets in eight months?” he asked on X. Calling it “an organised syndicate to hijack free and fair elections,” he said people deserved answers.