Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Rahul Gandhi Questions Anti-Incumbency; BJP Counters Amid ECI Dispute
Rahul Gandhi said governments usually become less popular over time, a process called anti-incumbency.
He asked why this seemed not to be happening to Narendra Modi, Amit Shah or the BJP in some states.
He connected this question to a report about disagreements inside the Election Commission of India.
The report said two Election Commissioners objected several times to decisions about voter lists.
These decisions included registering voters, deleting names and restoring names.
Gandhi said protecting votes is important because votes support the Constitution and other institutions.
The BJP disagreed with his argument and pointed to Congress’s long absences from power in several states.
BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi also said technology, CCTV cameras and independent media have made elections more closely scrutinized.
Rahul Gandhi questioned why anti-incumbency had seemingly disappeared in several Indian states.
He linked the issue to reported disagreements within the Election Commission of India over electoral-roll revisions.
The Indian Express reported that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected at least 14 times over 10 months.
The reported objections involved voter registration forms, database access, name deletions, restorations and appeals in West Bengal.
BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi countered that Congress’s own electoral history and greater election scrutiny should be considered.
- Who
- Rahul Gandhi, the Congress leader and Leader of Opposition, and BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi.
- What
- Gandhi questioned the apparent disappearance of anti-incumbency and linked it to concerns about electoral-roll management; the BJP rejected his interpretation.
- When
- Gandhi made the remarks on Thursday, after a report covering objections raised over the previous 10 months.
- Where
- The discussion concerned elections and electoral rolls in India, including several states and West Bengal.
- Why
- Gandhi was responding to reported disagreements within the Election Commission of India over the Special Intensive Revision process.
Congress and Rahul Gandhi
BJP and Sudhanshu Trivedi
Disappearance of anti-incumbency
Congress and Rahul Gandhi
Rahul Gandhi said anti-incumbency traditionally affects governments and questioned why it appeared absent in states such as Haryana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat.
BJP and Sudhanshu Trivedi
Sudhanshu Trivedi argued that Congress’s own electoral history must be considered, noting that it has been out of power for long periods in several states.
Electoral-roll concerns
Congress and Rahul Gandhi
Gandhi said reported disagreements within the Election Commission of India raised concerns about the protection of votes and the broader electoral system.
BJP and Sudhanshu Trivedi
The BJP’s stated response focused on election transparency and increased scrutiny through technology, CCTV cameras and independent media.
Meaning of the reported dissent
Congress and Rahul Gandhi
Gandhi presented the issue as a potential threat to the chain linking votes, the Constitution, laws and institutions.
BJP and Sudhanshu Trivedi
The BJP countered Gandhi’s political interpretation by challenging his account of electoral trends and Congress’s record.
- Reported objections
- Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected at least 14 times over 10 months.
- Electoral process
- The objections concerned voter registration, electoral-roll databases, deletion and restoration of names, and appeals in West Bengal.
- Form 6 dispute
- A new Special Intensive Revision-related declaration was reportedly added to Form 6 despite objections that the statutory form could not be changed without rule amendments.
- Gandhi’s argument
- Gandhi described anti-incumbency as a fundamental force in Indian democratic politics.
- BJP response
- Sudhanshu Trivedi cited Congress’s long absences from power in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha.
- Broader concern
- Gandhi said problems affecting votes could have consequences for the Constitution, laws and institutions.