During a charged Lok Sabha debate on election reforms on December 10, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah levelled strong allegations against the Congress, accusing the party of engaging in what he termed “vote chori” across three distinct phases in India’s political history. Shah cited examples involving former prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, framing them as instances of electoral malpractice tied to the party.
3 Instances Cited by Shah
Detailing his argument, Shah first claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru became India’s prime minister despite losing the internal vote to Sardar Patel, suggesting this as the first example of vote manipulation.
The second instance he referred to was the 1975 Allahabad High Court verdict that set aside Indira Gandhi’s Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli. Shah alleged that, to cover it up, Gandhi introduced legislation in Parliament providing immunity to sitting prime ministers, preventing legal cases from being brought against them.
The third example concerned Sonia Gandhi, with Shah stating that a case pending in a Delhi court alleges she was registered as a voter before acquiring Indian citizenship. “When you’re not eligible and still become a voter,” he said, noting that a court notice had been issued in the matter.
Opposition Benches Erupt in Protest
Shah’s comments drew immediate, heated protests from Congress MPs, who accused him of making misleading, baseless allegations. The uproar intensified when he repeated that he had merely referred to the fact that a case existed and that Sonia Gandhi had been issued a notice.
Congress leader K. C. Venugopal raised a point of order, asserting that the home minister’s remarks were factually incorrect. He said the case concerning Sonia Gandhi from the 1980s had already been dismissed by the Rouse Avenue Court.
“She didn’t even vote in that election. I challenge the home minister to prove otherwise,” Venugopal said, insisting that Shah’s statement had misled the House.
Shah Responds, Says No Conclusions Drawn
Countering the protests, Shah clarified that he had not drawn any conclusions. “The conclusion would come only after she responds to the court order. I’ve simply said a case exists and a notice has been issued. What is there to be so angry about?” he remarked, urging the opposition to address the issue legally rather than through interruptions.
A Debate That Intensified Reform Discussion
The confrontation marked a major flashpoint in the ongoing parliamentary debate on electoral reforms, highlighting escalating tensions between the treasury and opposition benches as both sides exchanged sharp allegations over the integrity of India’s electoral processes.
