India’s democratic history has been marked by both significant achievements and contentious challenges, particularly regarding the integrity of its electoral processes. Recently, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey has reignited debate over historical electoral malpractices by accusing the Congress Party and the Nehru-Gandhi family of systemic electoral fraud during former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s leadership. Through posts on the social media platform X, Dubey references a 1980 Lok Sabha discussion and the 1975 Allahabad High Court judgment in Smt. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain alleged widespread booth capturing, voter intimidation, and misuse of state resources in the 1980 general elections and the 1971 Rae Bareli election. He extends these accusations to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, suggesting that the party seeks to replicate these tactics to regain power.
India’s democratic journey is a complex tapestry of free elections, political upheavals, and allegations of electoral malpractices that have shaped public discourse and political rivalries. The 1980 general elections, conducted in the aftermath of the controversial Emergency period (1975–1977), remain a focal point for discussions on electoral integrity due to widespread reports of irregularities, particularly in states like Bihar.
Recently, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has brought these historical grievances to the forefront through a series of posts on X, accusing the Congress Party, under Indira Gandhi’s leadership, of manipulating elections through booth capturing, voter intimidation, and the misuse of state resources. By citing a Lok Sabha discussion from July 1, 1980, and the landmark 1975 Allahabad High Court judgment against Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election, Dubey shared details of systemic electoral fraud. He further targets Rahul Gandhi, alleging that the Congress Party’s current leadership intends to employ similar tactics.
कांग्रेस पार्टी के एक और शिगूफ़ा की पूरी तहक़ीक़ात
1. 1965 तथा 1971 के पाकिस्तानी युद्ध के बाद IMF,World Bank तथा ADB में भारत सरकार ने पाकिस्तान के लोन के मुद्दे पर वॉकऑउट ही किया था,क्योंकि वोटिंग के आधार पर यही एकमात्र विकल्प है
2. 1965 तथा 1971 युद्ध के बाद विश्व बैंक,IMf व… pic.twitter.com/qLwy5qanpP— Dr Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) June 7, 2025
The 1980 Elections and Political Climate
The 1980 general elections were a pivotal moment in India’s political history, following a period of significant turmoil. The Emergency (1975–1977), declared by Indira Gandhi, involved the suspension of civil liberties, mass arrests of opposition leaders, and media censorship, leading to widespread public discontent. The Congress Party’s defeat in the 1977 elections to the Janata Party coalition reflected this backlash, as voters expressed their frustration with the authoritarian measures. However, the Janata government’s internal divisions and governance failures created political instability, paving the way for Indira Gandhi’s return.
In the 1980 elections, the Congress Party secured a landslide victory, winning 353 of the 529 Lok Sabha seats. This triumph, however, was overshadowed by allegations of electoral malpractices, particularly in Bihar, where opposition leaders claimed that the Congress Party resorted to unfair practices to ensure its success. These allegations were raised in the Lok Sabha by Indrajit Gupta of the Communist Party of India.
Allegations from the 1980 Lok Sabha Discussion
In one of his X posts, Nishikant Dubey references a Lok Sabha discussion from July 1, 1980, where Indrajit Gupta raised serious concerns about the fairness of the 1980 assembly elections in Bihar. Gupta’s questions, directed to the Minister of Law, Justice, and Company Affairs, P. Shiv Shankar, focused on unprecedented delays in declaring results for numerous constituencies and reports of electoral malpractices, including booth capturing, voter intimidation, and the prevention of Scheduled Castes and Tribes from voting. Shiv Shankar’s response, as cited by Dubey, included a detailed statement listing 81 constituencies in Bihar where result declarations were delayed due to irregularities, affecting approximately 25 per cent of the state’s assembly seats.
राहुल बाबा इलेक्शन फ़िक्स या कैसे चुराया जाता है,अपने दादी इंदिरा गांधी जी का कारनामा पढ़िए जो इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट का जजमेंट है
1. 1971 के चुनाव में सेना तथा उसके हेलीकॉप्टर का इस्तेमाल हुआ
2. प्रधानमंत्री इंदिरा गांधी जी के चुनाव में शराब,कपड़ा खुले आम बाँटे गए
3. हिंदू धर्म के… https://t.co/v4lzzx0lW5 pic.twitter.com/lAhzjz7At2— Dr Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) June 7, 2025
The irregularities documented in the minister’s statement were extensive and alarming. In the Paru constituency (Serial No. 153), booths 33 and 141 were invaded by unsocial elements who tampered with ballot boxes and engaged in forcible voting. Similarly, in Belsand (Constituency 65), booths 61, 109, 142, and 154 reported the snatching of ballot boxes and ballot papers, with miscreants tampering with electoral materials. In Sursand (Constituency 71), booths 10, 13, and 99 experienced the snatching of ballot papers and possible insertion of unauthorised votes into ballot boxes. Harlakhi (Constituency 75) saw similar issues at booth 152, where miscreants forcibly inserted ballot papers. These incidents indicate a pattern of booth capturing that undermined the integrity of the electoral process across multiple constituencies.
Voter intimidation and violence were also prevalent. In Mohiuddin Nagar (Constituency 97), booths 11, 64, 77, 88, 98, 109, and 110 were targeted by armed miscreants who overpowered polling personnel, snatched ballot boxes, and engaged in forcible voting. In Supaul (Constituency 112), booths 19, 20, 21, 22, and others reported looting of ballot papers and assaults on polling staff. Tribeniganj (Constituency 113) experienced raids by armed groups, with reports of bomb explosions and tampering with the polled ballot boxes. Jandaha (Constituency 48) saw booth 39 targeted by assailants who snatched ballot boxes, while Lalganj (Constituency 51) reported the destruction of ballot boxes and firing of gunshots by assailants, creating an atmosphere of fear and coercion.
The forcible insertion of votes was another significant issue. In Runisaidpur (Constituency 64), booths 5, 30, 31, and 32 were targeted by armed individuals who snatched ballot papers and inserted unauthorised votes. Sheohar (Constituency 66) reported similar incidents at booths 114, 133, 140, 143, and 144, where armed groups overpowered polling staff. The destruction of electoral materials further compounded these issues, with constituencies like Ghanshyampur (Constituency 86) reporting unlawful possession of ballot boxes at booths 187, 191, and 192, and Baheri (Constituency 87) noting the snatching of ballot papers and electoral rolls at booths 110 and 111. In Jalley (Constituency 91), booths 58 and 59 saw the forcible insertion of ballot papers into ballot boxes by violent mobs, highlighting the chaotic nature of the electoral process in these areas.
Gupta emphasised the severity of these irregularities, noting that the delays in result announcements, which extended up to 11 or 12 days after polling on May 31, 1980, were unprecedented. He described the situation as a “horrible thing,” pointing out that 81 constituencies were affected, representing a significant portion of Bihar’s assembly seats. Gupta questioned whether the Congress Party’s uncertainty about securing a majority led to deliberate manipulation, suggesting that the scale of malpractices raised serious concerns about the democratic process.
Government’s Response to the 1980 Allegations
In response to Gupta’s queries, P. Shiv Shankar acknowledged the irregularities but defended the Election Commission’s actions. He noted that repolling was ordered in 20 constituencies to address the reported malpractices, indicating an effort to rectify the situation. For other constituencies, the Election Commission applied Section 58(2) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed Returning Officers to declare results if the winning candidate’s margin significantly exceeded the number of votes affected by irregularities. In cases where the margin was narrow, Returning Officers sought further instructions from the Election Commission, contributing to the delays. Shiv Shankar emphasised the need for a code of conduct to address such issues, arguing that existing legal measures, such as defamation suits, were insufficient to prevent electoral malpractices. He also suggested that the Press Council could play a role in mitigating damage caused by media reports that harmed candidates’ reputations. However, his response did not outline specific reforms to curb booth capturing or voter intimidation, leaving the impression that the government’s approach was reactive rather than proactive.
Allegations Against Indira Gandhi: The 1971 Allahabad High Court Case
In another X post, Dubey references the 1975 Allahabad High Court judgment in Smt. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, which challenged Indira Gandhi’s election from the Rae Bareli constituency in 1971. The case, filed by Samyukta Socialist Party leader Raj Narain, accused Gandhi and her election agent, Yashpal Kapoor, of engaging in corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegations were wide-ranging and pointed to a systemic misuse of state resources and inducements to secure electoral victory.
The first allegation was that Gandhi used Air Force planes and helicopters for campaign travel, leveraging state resources to gain an unfair advantage over other candidates. This charge was significant, as it suggested that the Prime Minister exploited her position to access resources that were not available to her competitors.
The second accusation involved the distribution of clothes and liquor by Yashpal Kapoor and others to induce voters, a practice that violated electoral laws by attempting to sway voters through material incentives.
The third charge claimed that Gandhi and her team appealed to voters using the religious symbol of the “cow and calf,” a tactic prohibited under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, as it exploited religious sentiments to garner votes.
Additional allegations included the procurement of vehicles to transport voters to polling stations, which was illegal under electoral regulations, and excessive campaign expenditure that violated Section 77(3) of the Representation of the People Act and Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Laws, 1961.
Gandhi was also accused of enlisting gazetted officers, including Yashpal Kapoor, an Officer on Special Duty in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, to further her election prospects. The court found that Kapoor’s resignation was not formally accepted until after the campaign, rendering his involvement a violation.
Finally, Gandhi was accused of declaring herself a candidate immediately after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on December 27, 1970, and using state resources to advance her campaign prematurely.
On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act. The court upheld two charges: that Gandhi obtained the assistance of Uttar Pradesh government officers, including the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and engineers from the Public Works and Hydel Departments, for constructing rostrums and arranging loudspeakers and power supply for campaign events on February 1 and 25, 1971; and that Yashpal Kapoor’s involvement, as a gazetted officer, constituted a violation. The court declared Gandhi’s election void and disqualified her from holding office for six years, effective from the date of the judgment.
This ruling triggered significant political turmoil, contributing to Gandhi’s declaration of the Emergency on June 25, 1975. Gandhi appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court issued a conditional stay, allowing her to remain in office pending the final verdict.
Nishikant Dubey’s Contemporary Critique
Nishikant Dubey’s X posts frame these historical incidents as evidence of a systemic pattern of electoral manipulation by the Congress Party and the Nehru-Gandhi family. He directly addresses Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of seeking to emulate his grandmother’s alleged tactics to regain power.
The 1980 elections and the 1971 Allahabad High Court case highlight significant challenges in India’s electoral system during the 1970s and early 1980s. Booth capturing, voter intimidation, and the misuse of state resources were prevalent, particularly in states like Bihar, where caste-based politics and weak administrative oversight created opportunities for malpractices. The Election Commission’s limited capacity to address these issues in real-time, as evidenced by the delays in result declarations, underscores the systemic weaknesses of the period. The Allahabad High Court case is a landmark in Indian judicial history, as it was the first instance of a sitting Prime Minister’s election being overturned on the grounds of corrupt practices. The ruling exposed the blurred lines between state and party resources, a recurring issue in Indian politics.
The Election Commission has implemented significant reforms since the 1980s, including the introduction of EVMs, voter ID cards, and stricter monitoring mechanisms, to curb booth capturing and voter intimidation. These advancements have significantly reduced the scope for the kinds of malpractices reported in 1980. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling, while significant, was contentious, as it was influenced by political motivations, and the Supreme Court’s stay of Gandhi’s disqualification lent credence to her defence.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s allegations against the Congress Party and the Nehru-Gandhi family draw on well-documented historical events to highlight serious electoral malpractices during Indira Gandhi’s tenure. The 1980 Lok Sabha discussion reveals widespread irregularities in Bihar’s elections, including booth capturing, voter intimidation, and destruction of electoral materials, affecting 81 constituencies. Similarly, the 1975 Allahabad High Court judgment underscores the misuse of state resources in Gandhi’s 1971 election campaign, marking a significant moment in India’s judicial and political history. While these incidents reflect systemic challenges in India’s electoral system during the 1970s and 1980s, their application to contemporary politics requires careful consideration.
The Election Commission’s reforms have strengthened India’s electoral framework, and allegations of ongoing malpractices must be supported by current evidence. Dubey’s critique, while rooted in historical records, serves a broader political agenda to discredit the Congress Party and its leadership. As India continues to refine its democratic processes, ensuring transparency, accountability, and public trust remains essential to safeguarding the integrity of its elections.
Comments