A stormy Lok Sabha debate on election reforms erupted as Home Minister Amit Shah cited a court notice to Sonia Gandhi, triggering fierce clashes with Congress. The uproar centred on electoral transparency, Special Intensive Revision, and allegations of voter roll manipulation.
The Lok Sabha witnessed intense chaos on Wednesday as a heated debate over election reforms spiralled into a full-fledged confrontation between the Treasury and Opposition benches. Tensions peaked when Home Minister Amit Shah referred to a recent Delhi court notice issued to former Congress president Sonia Gandhi regarding allegations that her name was added to the New Delhi electoral rolls before she officially became an Indian citizen in 1983.
The uproar erupted when Shah, intervening in the ongoing debate on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and broader electoral reforms, cited the court order that directed Gandhi and the Delhi Police to respond to a criminal revision petition filed on the issue. The Home Minister insisted he had only clarified a factual development, stating:
“The Delhi court has indeed issued a notice to Sonia Gandhi on a petition alleging her name was included in the electoral rolls of New Delhi before she formally acquired Indian citizenship.”
His comment, intended to highlight the need for stricter voter roll scrutiny and enhanced electoral transparency, immediately triggered protests from Congress MPs who accused the government of using unrelated and “baseless” allegations to derail the debate.
Congress General Secretary and MP KC Venugopal rose sharply under Rule 352 to accuse the Home Minister of misleading the House. Asserting that the case had been dismissed due to “no substance,” Venugopal said, “Sonia Gandhi has not even voted, and the Rouse Avenue Court dismissed the case as there is no substance in it… Can you prove it?” He further labelled Shah’s remarks as “misleading, defamatory, and diversionary tactics” aimed at shifting focus from alleged flaws in SIR.
He argued that raising such an issue during a crucial debate was inappropriate and politically motivated. His interruptions were met with strong objections from BJP MPs, who countered by demanding proof from Congress that Gandhi had not cast a vote prior to 1983. According to the Treasury benches, the matter held public significance and warranted scrutiny in the context of electoral reform discussions.
Shah, defending his remarks, responded firmly, saying:
“This is not defamation; I am not saying the matter has been concluded. The court has sent the notice and Mrs Gandhi has to answer it. After that I will come again and inform the House. It is about transparency in voter lists, which the opposition members themselves are demanding.”
The Opposition, however, accused the government and the NDA of weaponising a decades-old controversy to divert attention from current allegations that SIR disproportionately affects the names of Dalits, tribal communities, and migrant workers. Several MPs claimed that the revision process had resulted in wrongful deletions, disenfranchising large segments of marginalised citizens.
Speaker Om Birla repeatedly urged the members to maintain decorum, but the uproar only grew louder as both sides exchanged heated remarks. The ongoing disruptions made it difficult for the House proceedings to continue smoothly, prompting multiple interventions from the Chair.
Earlier in the session, Shah had criticised the Opposition for stalling discussions during the Winter Session. “In the first two days of the Winter Session, the House was not in order, giving people the impression that we do not want this discussion. BJP and the NDA never shy away from debates,” he remarked.
Addressing SIR in detail, the Home Minister outlined the government’s position, emphasising that the Election Commission functions independently and that the process was not influenced by the Central government. He explained the two main reasons for initial confusion:
Special Intensive Revision is an Election Commission mandate, not a government-controlled exercise.
When the Opposition sought a wider debate on electoral reforms, the government agreed readily, showing openness to transparency and improvement in the electoral system.
Shah reiterated that SIR was essential for ensuring clean, credible, and tamper-proof election processes, adding that the system had already shown positive results in states like Bihar. He maintained that the government remained committed to strengthening democratic institutions, modernising voter rolls, and improving oversight mechanisms.
Despite his clarifications, the Opposition maintained its stand, alleging that the government was selectively raising outdated accusations to overshadow the real issues—particularly the alleged impact of SIR on vulnerable communities.
| Also Read: Biplab Deb says Vande Mataram reflects 2 centuries of sacrifice |
With both sides refusing to budge, the debate on election reforms ended in a stalemate, leaving the House engulfed in tension and uncertainty. The stormy session once again highlighted the deep political rift over electoral integrity, accountability, and the future of democratic reforms in India.
