Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Sunday (October 18, 2026) said Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and CEC Gyanesh Kumar will face justice and pay the price for ‘vote chori’.

Mr. Gandhi joined the Congress’s ‘Goy Rakhon Yatra‘ in Margao, walking two kilometres with workers and leaders.

“The entire country knows that CEC Gyanesh Kumar implements ‘vote chori’ and Amit Shah and PM Modi back him,” he said while addressing a public meeting in Goa.

He said the Congress is a protector of the Constitution, adding that Mr. Modi, Mr. Shah and Gyanesh Kumar know they can’t escape from us. “PM Modi, Amit Shah and CEC Gyanesh Kumar will face justice and pay the price for what they have done,” he added.

Mr. Gandhi said India used to have a world-class education system earlier, but now pellet guns are being used against student protesters.

The Indian-origin U.S. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Wednesday (October 14, 2026) voiced concern over reports of the removal of 13 crore voter names from the draft electoral rolls in India.

“I am deeply concerned about the actions of the Indian government to purge 130 million people from the voting rolls,” Jayapal said in a post on X, marking the first such comments by a US lawmaker on the issue.

The Democratic Congresswoman from Washington State said she supported the non-violent protests to counter “anti-democratic efforts in India.”

Ms. Jayapal said the developments in India appear to be a similar playbook to what the Trump Administration is doing in the U.S. to undermine voting rights in a democracy.

She said protecting democracies everywhere is essential work, and the Indian people — like the American people — deserve free and fair elections.

“Non-violent resistance movements are essential in these moments, and I stand with the Indian people who are engaging in non-violent protests to counter anti-democratic efforts in India,” Ms. Jayapal said.

Comparing SIR 2002-04 and 2025-26

According to statistics shared by the Election Commission of India (ECI), around 7.2 crore names were deleted from the draft rolls in the first and second phases when the SIR was held in 13 States and union territories.

During the ongoing third phase, where draft lists of 18 States and Union Territories are published, the number of deleted voters stands at 6.16 crore.

The Commission has said that if a genuine voter’s name was inadvertently left out during the SIR process, the voter could seek inclusion through the claims and objections process and subsequently through Form 6.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ally, the Janata Dal-United (JD-U), on Tuesday (October 13, 2026) accused the Congress of undermining constitutional institutions and creating disorder in an attempt to regain power. The BJP and JD(U) alleged that the principal Opposition questioned the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) credibility after electoral defeats but accepted the process whenever it won.

In a joint press conference at the BJP headquarters, Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh of the JD(U) shared the platform with senior BJP leader and Union Minister Piyush Goyal. Both the Ministers condemned the alleged mistreatment of a pregnant journalist covering the Congress-led protest on Monday (October 11, 2026).

On the protests, Mr. Goyal said that if the Congress genuinely doubted the impartiality of the ECI and the integrity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, the six Chief Ministers of States where the party was in power or part of the ruling coalition should resign immediately. He referred to Karnataka, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh, and Keralam, besides Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu.

Accusing the Congress of double standards, Mr. Goyal said the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and his party had a “delulu is the solulu” (“delusion is the solution”) mindset, suggesting that they were living in denial over electoral setbacks.

Mr. Goyal asked Mr. Gandhi why he had repeatedly been alleging “vote theft” without submitting an affidavit or evidence; and why the Congress opposed the SIR when some of its own leaders had demanded electoral roll purification and even acknowledged its benefits.

The Congress and Mr. Gandhi were questioning the impartiality of the ECI, Mr. Goyal said, but had forgotten their own track record of allegedly rewarding former election officials with political appointments. The Modi government, in contrast, had introduced a law in 2023 providing for a selection committee, which includes the the Leader of the Opposition, to decide on the appointment of Election Commissioners, Mr. Goyal said.

“I don’t think Rahul Gandhi, the Congress party, or the Aam Aadmi Party, by sending its B-team (an apparent reference to the Cockroach Janta Party), can undermine Indian democracy through such attempts,” Mr. Goyal said, claiming that the protests had drawn a limited number of participants.

Alleging that Mr. Gandhi wanted “institutions that remain loyal to him”, the JD(U) Minister cited two instances of former judges during the Congress regime. He alleged that the Congress was now trying to discredit institutions, including the ECI and the judiciary, and pressure them through protests.

The Congress also questioned Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) after losing elections, but accepted the results whenever it won, Mr. Singh said. Recalling Mr. Gandhi’s allegations against Mr. Modi over the Rafale deal, he said the Congress leader had later tendered a written apology to the Supreme Court.

Accusing Mr. Gandhi of “creating disorder to seize power”, Mr. Singh said, “I think Rahul Gandhi is following in the footsteps of his grandmother. He wants to take the Congress party back to the 1974-75 period, when the Emergency was imposed in the country and everyone’s fundamental rights were taken away, including those of journalists, judges and the High Courts.”

The Congress’s policies and conduct were responsible for its shrinking electoral base, the JD(U) leader said, contrasting them with those of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He also criticised the Congress for what he described as an “unprecedented” protest outside the Supreme Court “to exert pressure”.

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (October 7, 2026) agreed to examine and take a call on hearing an application seeking a recall of a split verdict pronounced on September 23 in a case challenging the Election Commissioners’ appointments law.

The application, orally mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, questions why one of the judges on the apex court Bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not reveal during multiple court proceedings that his son was a standing counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The application, filed by Naman Sherstra, was mentioned the previous week before Justice Dipankar Datta, who was the lead judge on the Bench which gave the split verdict.

Justice Datta had asked Mr. Sankaranarayanan to mention the application before the Chief Justice as the records of the case had already been returned to the CJI.

Mr. Sherstra has sought a recall of the opinion given by Justice Sharma, who was the puisne judge on the Division Bench headed by Justice Datta, on September 23 on the question of referring the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Bench.

While Justice Datta, in his opinion, had declined the reference to a Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma took an opposing view in favour of the reference. Eventually, both judges on the Bench passed a common order for the Chief Justice of India to allocate the case to a Constitution Bench.

The application has objected to this common order, but did not challenge, specifically, the separate opinion given by Justice Datta.

Justice Datta had observed in his opinion that the 2023 law was prima facie wrong to ignore an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which had included the Chief Justice of India as a neutral member in the Prime Minister-led selection panel for Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The 2023 law had replaced the CJI with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Justice Datta had said the replacement gave the Executive veto power over CEC/EC appointments and reduced the presence of the Opposition Leader of the Lok Sabha to an ornamental status in the panel. Justice Datta had reminded that the appointment and functioning of Election Commissioners were integral to free and fair elections.

Subsequent to the September 23 verdict, media reports had alleged that Justice Sharma’s son was a standing counsel for the ECI.

Another petitioner, Jaya Thakur, has already filed a curative petition on September 29 to recall the split verdict, alleging “reasonable apprehension of bias and propriety”.

Mr. Shestra, though similarly seeking a recall, did not impute “actual bias, motive or want of good faith” on the part of Justice Sharma.

“The grievance is much narrower- whether, in view of an existing professional engagement of an immediate family member of the judge concerned with the institution whose statutory composition and with the functionaries of such institution whose appointments were directly under challenge, the judge ought to have disclosed the fact of such engagement to the parties when the proceedings were ongoing?” Mr. Sherstra’s application has asked.

The application said, “Siddharth Sharma (son of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) was appointed as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 10, 2024, after the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu to the poll body”.

“This engagement has continued since the elevation of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and the appointment of Dr. Vivek Joshi. It is prudent to assume that the incumbent members of the ECI, and specifically Mr. Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, had a direct role and/or had direct knowledge of the appointment of Siddharth Sharma as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court,” the application said.

The application said, “The engagement of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s son as the standing counsel for the ECI before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not disclosed to the parties by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at any point in time during the five hearings in the matter on May 5, May 7, May 14, May 27 and July 30”.

Amid the political slugfest over Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s remarks on Form 6 used for registration of voters, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Press Information Bureau came out with a slew of fact-checks.

Following the reports of dissent within the commission over changes made in Form 6, the EC had in a press release on September 26, claimed that the declaration form attached with Form 6 was upheld by the apex court.

As the CJI on Monday made it clear, “any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear,” Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was quick to target the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) saying, “It is now established beyond doubt that Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 illegally and unilaterally. This is just one more proof of him abusing his position to help the BJP. He and everyone else involved in this criminal assault on our democracy will be held accountable.”

Protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar highlights

The EC was, however, quick to fact-check Mr. Gandhi in a post on X. The Commission said the Leader of Opposition’s post was misleading, asserting that the June 24, 2025 order for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission and was upheld by the Supreme Court in its May 27, 2026 judgment. Further, the September 26, 2026 press note, categorically stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The press note of September 26 itself came into focus when Ashutosh Ranka of the Cockroach Janta Party in a post on X claimed that it was no more available on the EC website.

The PIB fact-checked him saying: “The press release dated 26th September 2026 is available in the public domain and has not been taken down by the Election Commission of India.”

The Election Commission of India officers in charge of Special Intensive Revision have rejected the demand for scrutiny and deletion of around 2,598 votes sought by BJP leader and MLA Abhay Patil in Belagavi North constituency.

M. Karthik, Belagavi city corporation commissioner and the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) has replied to the MLA’s letter, saying that there was no legal provision for bulk scrutiny or deletion of votes under the SIR process.

He has, however, clarified that Booth Level Agents (BLAs) could file objections to the inclusion of doubtful electors through the concerned Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

In a letter dated September 19, Mr. Patil had alleged that the BLAs from his constituency had detected over 2,598 bogus voters. He had given details of the number of suspect voters along with their part numbers and booth numbers.

B.K. Hariprasad, MLC and KPCC chairman, had objected to this, saying Mr. Patil had no locus standi in sending a letter to SIR officials seeking bulk deletion of voters. He alleged that the BJP MLA was targetting Muslim voters only to help his cause in the next elections.

‘Not seeking bulk deletion’

Speaking to reporters in Belagavi on Friday (September 25, 2026), Mr. Patil said that he had not sought bulk deletion of voters.

“I have not asked for deletion of names of any elector. I am only asking SIR officers to conduct an inquiry, look into allegations of inclusion of bogus voters, scrutinise the Forms 6 and 7 submitted by suspect voters and delete their names if found false. I am not only a MLA, but also the Booth Level Agent number 1 for my constituency. I have a right to do so. I also have a responsibility towards ensuring clean elections and a duty to express solidarity with BLA 2 and my other associates who have gone door-to-door to trace bogus voters,’’ he said.

Mr Patil said that Deepak Patil, the BLA 2, and his team, had found some false voters and filed objections through Form 7 to the respective BLOs. “But the BLOs had not acted on those objections. I wrote the letter only to remind them of their duties. Along with my letter, I have submitted a proof of all objections filed by the BLAs in my constituency,’’ he said.

Mr. Patil also denied Mr. Hariprasad’s allegations. “I know the rules well. I am a four-term MLA and I am only exercising my right.” He said that he would appeal to the ECI if his objections were not considered by local SIR officers.

:

Acting on a tip-off, a surveillance team conducted an inspection at Mulanur, and seized ₹40,79,150 lakh in cash from the residence of Viswanathan in the Thalakkarai area and ₹7,63,400 from the residence of house of Selvaraj, also from the same locality.

A total of ₹48,42,550 was not accounted for and would be handed over to the district treasury, official sources said.

Officials are investigating if the money is meant to be distributed to voters by political parties.

Precautionary measures

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) of Dharapuram, Felix Raja, in his capacity as Returning Officer for the Dharapuram (R) Assembly constituency, convened a meeting with owners of marriage halls at the Taluk Office and instructed them not to permit conduct of political events, as per guidelines of Election Commission of India.

Information about political parties or candidates attempting to book marriage halls, while the Election Code of Conduct is in place, must necessarily be conveyed to the officials immediately, the RDO said.

1,07,96,415 crore, that is the number of voters facing possible exclusion from the Karnataka’s electoral rolls after being categorised as Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate and Others (ASDDO), following the conclusion of enumeration phase on August 17. At close to1.08 crore, that is close to one-fifth of the State’s electorate.

With the draft electoral roll scheduled to be published on August 24, the main concerns remain voter exclusion, the accuracy and transparency of the ASDDO classification.

Reporting: Nalme Nachiyar, Rishita Khanna

Video & Editing: Ravichandran N