'Vote Chori Is An Anti-National Act’: Venugopal, BJP Clash In Lok Sabha Over Electoral Reform

The Lok Sabha’s latest debate on electoral reforms saw Congress General Secretary and Kerala MP K.C. Venugopal describe what he called “vote chori” as nothing less than an “anti-national act”, setting the tone for accusations, distrust and political theatre.

Speaking on the eighth day of the Winter Session, Venugopal launched a sharp broadside at the BJP, alleging that the ruling party believes it can run the nation through its command over institutions such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the CBI and even the Election Commission. “Ultimately,” he insisted, “the final authority rests with the people of India.”

In a pointed historical swipe, he argued that while the BJP now wraps itself in the flag of patriotism, its ideological predecessors “never fought the British during the freedom struggle”. This line sparked immediate protests from the Treasury benches.

The SIR Flashpoint

Much of Venugopal’s critique centred on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process that has become the latest storm cloud over the integrity of India’s elections. He noted that the SIR in 2004 took six months, and that the Election Commission itself had previously deferred similar exercises in Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra due to looming polls. “But just before the Bihar election, suddenly the SIR begins. Earlier, the procedure took six months,” he said, suggesting political intent.

Invoking B. R. Ambedkar’s warning from 15 June 1949, when Article 289 was introduced, Venugopal reminded the House that the franchise is “the fundamental thing in a democracy” and must never be left to the whims of officials. “No one’s name should be cut on the whims of an officer. That cuts at the very root of democracy,” he said, arguing that Ambedkar’s words now read like a constitutional prophecy of present-day concerns.

He charged that the once-revered impartiality of the Election Commission had been eroded: “The idea of an impartial election umpire has been replaced. It now openly collapses under political pressure.”

A Question of Impartiality — and the CJI’s Removal

Venugopal revisited the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgement which had held that, until Parliament enacted a law, the selection panel for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners must include the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Parliament  then enacted a law, but removed the CJI from the committee.

“The government says it made the law because the Supreme Court told them to. Yet immediately after the judgement, they removed the CJI. The intention is clear — they are scared of putting a neutral person on that committee,” he said.

“A Discussion on Electoral Reforms, Sir”

At one point, turning to Speaker Om Birla, Venugopal reminded him dryly: “Sir, this is a discussion on electoral reforms.” He alleged that when the Congress complained to the Election Commission about Prime Minister Modi’s alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct during the general election, the complaint was forwarded straight to BJP president J. P. Nadda — a claim that, unsurprisingly, provoked uproar.

He further charged that the Congress’s own financial resources had been crippled just before the election when the Income Tax department froze its accounts, and that the EC “did not intervene”.

In a pointed aside, Venugopal highlighted that 53 voters under the age of 50 had been struck off the electoral rolls as deceased. “The government should be concerned about why so many young people are dying. What is happening in this country?” he asked, turning the issue back on the government.

BJP Pushes Back

BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad mounted a robust defence, dismissing the Opposition’s allegations as little more than political convenience. “When they win, the Election Commission is perfectly acceptable. When we win, suddenly it becomes flawed. What kind of logic is this?” he asked, accusing the Opposition of hypocrisy and “bitterness”, arguing that questions over electoral credibility arise only when outcomes do not favour them.

“I heard the speeches of Venugopal ji and other Opposition members. What stays with me is this: what lies behind this bitterness — this pain, this anguish?” Prasad said. “If the public doesn’t vote for you, does that automatically make the Election Commission the culprit? If people reject you, what exactly are we supposed to do?”

Responding to the Opposition’s references to Bihar, Prasad noted with some sarcasm that despite their loud criticism, the results spoke for themselves. “You talk endlessly about my Bihar. There was so much noise during the election, yet you ended up with only five seats,” he remarked. “Rahul Gandhi campaigned extensively, Tejashwi campaigned as well — and still the tally was just five.”

He also questioned Venugopal’s propriety in raising issues linked to the Special Intensive Revision while being a petitioner in a related Supreme Court matter. “Parliament has its decorum. If you are a petitioner in the Supreme Court on an issue and then raise the same matter here, do we not have the right to question your impartiality? Is that not part of my parliamentary responsibility?” he argued.

Prasad formally objected to several statements made by Opposition members and sought their deletion from the House records if found inappropriate during inquiry. His intervention came after Venugopal accused the Election Commission of “abandoning neutrality” and “enabling vote chori”.

 A House in Uproar

When Venugopal criticised the Prime Minister’s remarks during the 2024 campaign, prompting loud protests from BJP MPs. Repeating his charge that the Law Minister had engaged in “a lot of tamasha” while failing to answer Rahul Gandhi’s questions, he pressed on undeterred.

“There will be a people’s movement to save democracy,” Venugopal declared, ending on a note of defiance. “We will ensure that vote chori does not succeed. You will not silence us. We say this bravely, the people of this ocuntry will protect our democracy.”