The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of “vote theft” during the last Lok Sabha elections. The petition, filed by advocate Rohit Pandey, specifically requested the Supreme Court to order an SIT probe into Gandhi’s statements regarding alleged large-scale voter list fraud in Bengaluru Central and other constituencies.
Court’s Observations and Directions
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition, stating that the authority to look into such election-related complaints lies exclusively with the Election Commission of India (ECI). The justices remarked, “In matters like this, the power of investigation rests with the Election Commission. The petitioner may approach the ECI with their grievance.” The court clarified that judicial intervention in election procedures and result grievances is not warranted unless absolutely necessary.
End of Legal Road for SIT Demand
With this order, the Supreme Court unequivocally closed the door on the demand for an SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi’s comments, clarifying that complaints related to voting process or results must be investigated by the Election Commission, not by the courts. The bench further declined to set a timetable for the ECI, emphasizing the institution’s statutory independence in handling such grievances.
Background to the Allegations
Rahul Gandhi’s “vote chori” (vote theft) allegations during and after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections—accusing the BJP and the Election Commission of manipulation of voter rolls—sparked widespread debate. The Congress leader’s assertions drew formal requests from election officials for supporting evidence, including a list of allegedly fraudulent voters, but prompted no official action pending substantiation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the Election Commission’s authority over electoral complaints and underscores that judicial forums are not the proper venue for such investigations. Petitioners seeking redress in such cases are advised to pursue their grievance with the ECI directly.