Amit Shah Defends Electoral Reforms: "No Voting Rights for Infiltrators Despite Opposition Claims"

Union Home Minister Amit Shah accused opposition of spreading lies about SIR.

New Delhi:

Union Home Minister Amit Shah delivered a forceful critique of the Congress and other opposition parties on Wednesday, accusing them of propagating falsehoods about SIR, damaging India's democratic reputation, and emphasized that the Modi government "will not allow infiltrators to get voting rights".

During his response to the electoral reforms debate in the Lok Sabha, Amit Shah countered claims raised by opposition members including Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.

Despite interruptions from Congress members regarding his statements, Amit Shah affirmed the government's willingness to discuss all issues according to established rules.

He explained that while the Opposition sought discussion on Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls (SIR), such deliberations cannot occur in Parliament because SIR responsibility belongs to the Election Commission, which operates independently of the Government.

Amit Shah noted that although the discussion was intended to focus on electoral reforms, most opposition members instead addressed SIR specifically.

He asserted that for four months, misleading one-sided narratives about SIR have been circulated to confuse the public. He emphasized that the Election Commission was established under Constitutional articles and functions as a constitutional body.

The Constitution defines voter eligibility in Article 326, with the primary requirement being Indian citizenship. He explained that voter qualification is determined based on three criteria, all of which must be evaluated by the Election Commission.

The Home Minister highlighted that Article 327 grants the Election Commission complete authority to recommend laws concerning electoral rolls, delimitation, election conduct, and related matters, including full power to prepare electoral rolls according to this interpretation.

He pointed out that Special Intensive Revision has occurred multiple times previously without opposition, making this the first instance of resistance.

He stated that regular intensive revision of electoral rolls is necessary, which is why the Election Commission scheduled it for 2025.

Responding to Rahul Gandhi's allegations, Shah said, "There are three criteria of vote theft. First, when there's an invalid voter, second, when you win an election through wrong measures, third, when you defy the mandate. I would like to tell you about three incidents of voter chori. First, after independence, the country's PM was to be elected...Sardar Patel got 28 votes, and Jawaharlal Nehru got two votes. But Jawaharlal Nehru became the Prime Minister."

"Indira Gandhi got elected from Rae Bareily, Raj Narain approached the Allahabad High Court that this election did not happen according to rules. HC decided that Indira Gandhi did not win the election appropriately and declared it void. This was also vote theft. They brought a bill in Parliament that no case can be registered against the PM," he added.

He also referenced a Delhi court case alleging Congress leader Sonia Gandhi "became a voter before becoming an Indian citizen".

Amit Shah declared Congress's defeat as "certain" regardless of voter list changes.

"In his press conference, the LoP levelled allegations that the voter list is not corrected and needs to be rectified. So, what is SIR? It is the procedure to sanitise the voter list. He is opposing even when we are undertaking the process. It doesn't matter if the voter list is new or old, your defeat is certain; the voter list doesn't have to do anything with it," Shah stated.

He claimed the BJP rarely faces anti-incumbency. "Anti-incumbency is only against those who work against the public interest. It is true that the BJP had to face anti-incumbency very rarely...But it is not as if we have never lost any election after 2014...Double standards won't work in a democracy. When you win, EC is great. When you lose, EC is useless and works at BJP's behest," he added.

The Home Minister explained that a 2010 provision prevented names from being removed from electoral rolls. He questioned whether any democracy could remain secure if infiltrators determine who becomes Prime Minister or Chief Minister.

Shah emphasized that voters should not be allowed to vote in multiple locations. He clarified that SIR simply purifies electoral rolls, though this affects certain parties' political interests. He maintained that non-citizens should not have voting rights in Indian elections.

He observed that electoral rolls themselves don't determine electoral outcomes – defeats result from anti-incumbency when parties act against public interest.

Shah noted that opposition parties only question electoral rolls after significant defeats like in Bihar, not when they win elections.

He argued that by questioning voter verification, which is constitutionally mandated, and making unfounded allegations, the opposition undermines both the Election Commission's reputation and India's democratic image globally.

Amit Shah pointed out that since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in May 2014, the opposition has consistently raised objections. He highlighted that while the NDA has secured three Lok Sabha elections and 41 state assembly elections (totaling 44), opposition parties have won 30 assembly elections. He questioned why opposition parties took their oaths and contested elections if they believed voter lists were compromised. He emphasized that voter list purification was actually requested by the opposition, and the Election Commission is simply fulfilling this request.

He suggested that when EVM tampering allegations failed to convince the public, the opposition pivoted to "vote theft" claims, particularly during their Bihar campaign, yet still lost. He attributed opposition defeats to leadership issues rather than EVMs or voter lists.

He observed that opposition parties make allegations without seeking remedies, while all EVM and VVPAT rules are being properly followed.

The Home Minister credited EVMs with ending vote theft. Shah described Narendra Modi as the most publicly engaged Prime Minister since independence, working continuously without a single day off since 2001. He noted that the main opposition party has not provided any suggestions to the Election Commission regarding electoral reforms since Modi took office in 2014. He highlighted that Modi's government included opposition leaders in the Election Commissioner appointment process, unlike previous administrations where Prime Ministers made these decisions unilaterally.

The Home Minister referenced Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows candidates to file election petitions within 45 days, after which results cannot be challenged. Shah clarified that his government has not increased Election Commissioners' immunity under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. He asserted that the opposition's true agenda is keeping illegal immigrants on voter lists. "Even if the opposition boycotts the House 200 times, we will not allow even a single illegal infiltrator to vote in the country." The Home Minister stated that "the government's policy is to Detect, Delete, and Deport, and we will carry out this work through constitutional processes".

He claimed the opposition strategy is to normalize infiltrators, recognize them, and then formalize their status by adding them to voter lists. He warned that demographic changes pose significant dangers, stating, "This country has already been divided once on the basis of demographics, and we do not want future generations to witness another partition of this country."

Regarding the opposition walkout, Amit Shah reiterated, "even if the opposition boycotts the House 200 times, we will not grant voting rights to even a single infiltrator".

The Union Home Minister declared that RSS ideology centers on patriotic sacrifice, national prosperity, and cultural pride.

Amit Shah criticized the opposition alliance for filing an impeachment motion against a judge who granted Hindus worship rights, claiming the Indian people would never forgive this action.