New Delhi, Oct 16:
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke on Thursday accused the government of attempting to influence electoral outcomes through alleged voter deletions, questioning whether the removal of over 13 crore names from electoral rolls was a “setting”.
Addressing a press conference alongside student leaders and actor Prakash Raj, Dipke raised concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Referring to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Dipke pointed out that the BJP had won 240 seats in the 543-member Lok Sabha, while the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance secured 293 seats to form the government.
“The margin of victory in 2024 was just 2 per cent. Over 13 crore voters deleted,” he said, questioning the rationale behind the large-scale revision of electoral rolls.
Dipke also criticised the restrictions imposed on protesters in the national capital, alleging that the authorities were attempting to prevent people from joining demonstrations against the Election Commission. He questioned the detention of political leaders and protesters and the disruption of transport services in connection with the protests.
Student leaders participating in the press conference also criticised the handling of the demonstrations and called for accountability over the electoral-roll revision process.
The Election Commission’s revision exercise has triggered a political controversy, with Opposition parties raising concerns over transparency and the possible exclusion of eligible voters. The authorities have maintained that electoral-roll revisions are intended to identify deceased voters, duplicate entries and people who have shifted residence.
The figure of over 13 crore cited by Dipke has become a central point of contention. The number must be distinguished from the final count of voters removed after the completion of the verification and claims process. Dipke’s allegation of electoral manipulation remains a political charge and does not, by itself, establish that the revision was conducted to influence election outcomes.