The 2025 Bihar election generated expectations among supporters of the Grand Alliance that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, after nearly two decades in office, might face an electoral setback. Some observers also anticipated a shift in national political trends or a decline in the Lok Janshakti Party, led by Chirag Paswan. The results, however, surprised those who expected a change in the state’s leadership and prompted renewed debate about electoral processes in India. The election was framed by competing narratives: calls for political change versus support for continuity.
For critics of the current system, the outcome raised concerns about whether India’s electoral mechanisms ensure a level playing field or whether certain practices may influence results in favour of incumbents.
One of the principal issues raised by opposition groups and analysts relates to the functioning of the Election Commission. Although the Election Commissioner holds an independent constitutional role, critics argue that the institution lacks autonomy and transparency in some of its decisions. Supporters of the ruling establishment maintain that the Commission follows due process and that its decisions are consistent with legal frameworks.
Prior to the election, the Election Commission conducted a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. This exercise led to the removal and addition of a large number of names. Media reports noted concerns that some voters living outside the state, including migrant workers, were removed for not completing verification processes. Some political groups alleged that specific communities or party supporters were disproportionately affected. Approximately 80,000 names were reportedly deleted, while around three lakh were added. Critics contend that these changes may have influenced the final outcome, while election authorities have maintained that such revisions follow standard procedures.
Opposition parties also claimed that some voters were prevented from reaching polling stations or that irregular proxy voting occurred. These allegations have not been independently verified and are denied by the authorities responsible for conducting the polls.
As in several Indian elections, questions were raised about the functioning of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Some opposition leaders alleged tampering or discrepancies between voter intention and recorded votes. The Election Commission and technical experts have consistently stated that EVMs and VVPATs are secure, and no conclusive evidence has been publicly established to support the allegations in Bihar.
Concerns were also expressed about the security of strongrooms where EVMs are stored and about counting procedures. Some media reports and political groups alleged irregularities or the replacement of machines after polling. Election officials denied these allegations, stating that strongrooms are secured with multi-tier monitoring and that all political parties are allowed to observe sealing and opening processes. Nevertheless, scepticism persists among some sections of the opposition.
Critics further pointed to discrepancies between the number of listed voters and votes polled, citing figures available on the Election Commission website. Election officials generally attribute such differences to rounding errors or updates made during final aggregation. The state government’s welfare schemes, including subsidies, cash transfers, and enhanced social benefits, were also cited by opposition leaders as having influenced electoral behaviour, while the government maintains that these initiatives form part of ongoing development programmes. There were additional claims that special trains were used to facilitate voter movement. Officials stated that transport arrangements are not uncommon during elections, especially for migrant workers, while critics questioned the neutrality of these arrangements.
Commentators have analysed the Bihar election in the context of broader political trends. Some argue that social and religious polarisation, institutional constraints, media pressure, and majoritarian political narratives shape electoral outcomes. Supporters of the government argue that its policies reflect popular mandate and long-term social and economic priorities.
The “V-Democracy Report 2025,” which assesses democratic systems globally, classifies India as an “electoral autocracy,” citing concerns about institutional independence, the media environment, and political polarisation. The report ranks India 100th among 179 countries. The Indian government has consistently rejected such assessments, arguing that they rely on flawed methodologies and do not reflect the reality of India’s democratic processes.
---
Syed Ali Mujtaba is a journalist based in Chennai
Comments
Only some opposition parties claimed, some opposition leaders and analysts contends, some media reports alleged, some foreign Democracy rating outlets cited — no substance, ni authenticity, no verification, but full of nonsense and propagandist claims.
The name of the author has, however, provided some reason for this filthy article. I didn't want to point out, but I always find such names whenever some dubious things come before me.