The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 25) stayed criminal proceedings against political scientist and psephologist Sanjay Kumar in two cases linked to his posting of incorrect data on changes in the number of electors in Maharashtra’s Ramtek and Deolali assembly constituencies.
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice N.V. Anjaria granted interim relief to Kumar and issued notice to the Maharashtra government, according to Live Law.
Kumar, who is director of the Lokniti programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) in Delhi, had petitioned for the FIRs against him to be quashed.
Kumar argued that invoking criminal provisions against him was “demonstrably inapplicable” to the facts of the case and amounted to an “abuse of state power.” He submitted that the cases were based on what was clearly a technical mistake that had been corrected immediately.
“The officers reporting to the Election Commission have chosen to lodge FIRs against a respected professor and public intellectual for a mere technical error that was instantly corrected. Such actions violate the fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice and serve to create a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech,” Live Law quoted him as saying.
The controversy began last week when Kumar, in a post on X, claimed that the number of electors had fallen significantly between the April–June 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the October 2024 assembly polls in Ramtek and Deolali.
The claim was quickly proven wrong, as electoral rolls in both constituencies had in fact recorded a modest increase. His post came amid an ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s intensive voter list revision in Bihar and broader opposition allegations of voter fraud, including those raised by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Two days later, Kumar deleted the post and issued an apology, clarifying that his data team had misread the figures.
“I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation,” he wrote.
Nevertheless, the district electoral officers of Nagpur and Nashik announced that FIRs had been lodged against him under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including provisions on providing false information related to an election, statements conducive to public mischief, using forged documents, and defamation.
Kumar also retracted another post in which he had claimed sharp increases in elector numbers in Nashik West and Hingna assembly segments. In reality, the increases were far smaller than what he had originally suggested. BJP leaders seized on the errors to target CSDS, while Bihar’s chief electoral officer remarked that Kumar’s erroneous data had been quoted widely by Congress and opposition leaders to question the Election Commission.
The issue escalated further after the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), which funds CSDS, accused the centre—without naming Kumar directly—of “data manipulation” and attempting to “create a narrative with the intention of undermining the sanctity of the Election Commission.”
The ICSSR has also served CSDS a show-cause notice asking why its funding should not be discontinued.
The Supreme Court’s interim order offers Kumar temporary relief, even as the broader debate over the Election Commission’s functioning, voter list revisions, and political attacks on independent research organisations continues to intensify.
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice N.V. Anjaria granted interim relief to Kumar and issued notice to the Maharashtra government, according to Live Law.
Kumar, who is director of the Lokniti programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) in Delhi, had petitioned for the FIRs against him to be quashed.
Kumar argued that invoking criminal provisions against him was “demonstrably inapplicable” to the facts of the case and amounted to an “abuse of state power.” He submitted that the cases were based on what was clearly a technical mistake that had been corrected immediately.
“The officers reporting to the Election Commission have chosen to lodge FIRs against a respected professor and public intellectual for a mere technical error that was instantly corrected. Such actions violate the fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice and serve to create a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech,” Live Law quoted him as saying.
The controversy began last week when Kumar, in a post on X, claimed that the number of electors had fallen significantly between the April–June 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the October 2024 assembly polls in Ramtek and Deolali.
The claim was quickly proven wrong, as electoral rolls in both constituencies had in fact recorded a modest increase. His post came amid an ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s intensive voter list revision in Bihar and broader opposition allegations of voter fraud, including those raised by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Two days later, Kumar deleted the post and issued an apology, clarifying that his data team had misread the figures.
“I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation,” he wrote.
Nevertheless, the district electoral officers of Nagpur and Nashik announced that FIRs had been lodged against him under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including provisions on providing false information related to an election, statements conducive to public mischief, using forged documents, and defamation.
Kumar also retracted another post in which he had claimed sharp increases in elector numbers in Nashik West and Hingna assembly segments. In reality, the increases were far smaller than what he had originally suggested. BJP leaders seized on the errors to target CSDS, while Bihar’s chief electoral officer remarked that Kumar’s erroneous data had been quoted widely by Congress and opposition leaders to question the Election Commission.
The issue escalated further after the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), which funds CSDS, accused the centre—without naming Kumar directly—of “data manipulation” and attempting to “create a narrative with the intention of undermining the sanctity of the Election Commission.”
The ICSSR has also served CSDS a show-cause notice asking why its funding should not be discontinued.
The Supreme Court’s interim order offers Kumar temporary relief, even as the broader debate over the Election Commission’s functioning, voter list revisions, and political attacks on independent research organisations continues to intensify.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment