The Curious Case of Prof. Sanjay Kumar, Co-director, Lokniti – CSDS : His Tweet on Maharashtra Assembly Election , Retraction, Apology and Fallout.
The Deleted Tweet: Voter Data Fiasco Ignites Debate on Electoral Integrity in India
In the high-stakes arena of Indian politics, where data often becomes ammunition, a single tweet can ignite a firestorm.
On August 17, 2025, Professor Sanjay Kumar, a renowned psephologist and co-director of Lokniti-CSDS, posted allegations of dramatic fluctuations in voter numbers in Maharashtra’s assembly constituencies. His claims, which directly contradicted the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) assertions of clean electoral rolls, fueled opposition accusations of foul play. However, just two days later, Kumar retracted his statement, admitting a data misinterpretation error and deleting the post. This swift reversal has not only damaged Kumar’s reputation but has also amplified a broader controversy involving the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the ECI, and opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi.
As the dust settles, the episode raises profound questions about electoral transparency, institutional autonomy, and its spillover effects on campaigns like the ongoing Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar.
The Spark: Prof. Kumar’s Explosive Claim and Its Immediate Fallout
Professor Sanjay Kumar’s initial tweet, posted shortly after Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s press conference dismissing allegations of voter roll manipulations in Maharashtra as “bogus,” was a bombshell. Drawing from a CSDS-Lokniti study, he highlighted a 47% spike in eligible voters in Nashik West and a 43% increase in Hingna between the 2024 Lok Sabha and assembly elections—a mere five-month span. Conversely, he noted sharp declines of 38% in Ramtek and 36% in Devlali. These figures, Kumar argued, suggested potential electoral malpractices, lending empirical weight to opposition narratives of systemic fraud.
The post quickly went viral on social media, with users amplifying it as evidence of “vote chori” (vote theft). Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, who had held a press conference on August 7 alleging similar irregularities based on hard copies of electoral data from Karnataka’s Mahadevpur constituency, seized the moment. His team referenced Kumar’s data to bolster claims that the ECI was complicit in benefiting the ruling BJP-led alliance, which had swept the Maharashtra assembly polls in 2024 amid controversies over unexplained voter turnout surges.
Newspaper reports captured the frenzy detailing how Kumar’s tweet “ruffled feathers” within the ECI and BJP, noting the professor’s history of balanced analysis despite occasional pro-government leanings during TV appearances. The Times of India reported that the data “set the cat among the pigeons,” aligning with grassroots complaints from political workers about discrepancies in voter slips and polling agent verifications.
On X (formerly Twitter), posts from users echoed these concerns, citing mismatches in votes polled versus counted in the 2024 polls, with excess votes in 92 constituencies favoring the NDA.
Kumar’s deleted tweet alongside Amit Malviya’s rebuttal, underscored the partisan divide.
Amit Malviya, BJP’s IT cell chief, labeled the data “fake” and accused Kumar of fudging facts to aid the opposition. Social media reports further revealed a coordinated BJP pushback, with trolls vilifying Kumar as a “Congress agent” despite his past directorship at CSDS under the Modi regime.
The Retraction: Pressure, Apology, and Institutional Repercussions
By August 19, the narrative flipped. Kumar issued a public apology on X: “I sincerely apologize for the tweets posted regarding Maharashtra elections. Error occurred while comparing data of 2024 LS and 2024 AS. The data in row was misread by our Data team. The tweet has since been removed.” He emphasized no intent to spread misinformation, but the damage was done.
BJP leaders, including Malviya, pounced, demanding apologies from Gandhi and questioning CSDS’s credibility. Malviya’s post, garnering over 10,000 likes, mocked Kumar as a “protégé of Yogendra Yadav” and dismissed his analyses as biased.
The retraction sparked speculation about external pressure.
Kumar “caved in” after 40 hours of resistance, possibly due to threats to CSDS funding from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), a government body.
Reports from Swarajya confirmed ICSSR’s initiation of a show-cause notice against CSDS for “manipulating” data. Maharashtra police filed two FIRs against Kumar for spreading false information, as per NDTV and Indian Express. This echoes the narrative of the “Modi pantheon” demanding “complete obeisance,” punishing even Kumar, who had navigated funding pressures since becoming CSDS director in 2014.
Social media amplified the backlash.
Some posts celebrated the apology as a blow to opposition “fake narratives,” while others persisted with claims of an 8% voter spike in CM Devendra Fadnavis’s constituency. The episode highlights the precarious position of academics in polarized times, where data errors can invite legal and professional peril.
Ramifications for the Government: Damage Control and Credibility Challenges
For the BJP-led government, Kumar’s initial claim was a PR nightmare, reinforcing perceptions of electoral favoritism post the 2024 Maharashtra win, where voter turnout mysteriously jumped from 58.22% to 66.05% overnight.
The retraction provided ammunition for counterattacks, with BJP labeling Gandhi’s campaign a “Ghuspaithiya Bachao Yatra” (Infiltrator Protection March). However, the aggressive response—FIRs, ICSSR actions, and Malviya’s vilification—risks portraying the government as intolerant of dissent.
This underscores the BJP’s strategy of swift narrative control via social media and institutions. Yet, it exposes vulnerabilities: if hard copies of rolls are public, why not release comprehensive data to debunk claims?
The government’s silence on Gandhi’s Karnataka example and failure to sue for defamation, as questioned in social media snippets, fuels suspicion. Broader ramifications include eroded trust in government-funded think tanks like CSDS, historically autonomous but now accused of toeing the line.
Kumar’s candid admission to staff about needing to “toe the line” for funds highlights this shift since 2014, contrasting with UPA-era independence.
Scrutiny on the Election Commission: Questions of Impartiality
The ECI emerges as the most scrutinized entity. CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s dismissal of manipulations clashed directly with Prof. Kumar’s data, but the retraction hasn’t absolved the body. Opposition protests in Rajya Sabha, as reported by The Hindu, accused the ECI of “vote chori,” with Gandhi alleging a “partnership” with the BJP. The SIR (System for Inclusion Review?) process, flagged for deleting 65 lakh voters in Bihar, adds fuel, with experts questioning unexplained surges in Maharashtra.
The ECI’s defence—citing public availability of rolls—rings hollow amid reports of bogus voters and unverifiable addresses.
This controversy could prompt demands for reforms, like digital voter rolls and booth CCTV, as advocated by NSUI. Institutionally, it tests the ECI’s autonomy under the Modi regime, where past surveys critical of the government faced no reprisals, unlike now.
Ripples in Bihar: Derailing the Vote Adhikar Yatra?
The Maharashtra fiasco has direct bearings on Bihar’s political landscape, where assembly elections loom. Rahul Gandhi’s 1,300 km Vote Adhikar Yatra, launched on August 17 from Sasaram, focuses on “vote theft” via SIR, accusing the ECI of conspiring to steal polls. Kumar’s retraction has emboldened BJP to mock the Yatra, demanding Gandhi’s apology and framing it as opposition desperation.
Yet, the Yatra gains traction among Mahagathbandhan allies, with Tejashwi Yadav positioned as a potential CM face.
Social media fact-checks, like India Today’s debunking of viral videos as old footage, indicate attempts to discredit it.
If Maharashtra doubts persist, they could mobilize voters in Bihar against perceived ECI bias, potentially swaying the INDIA bloc. However, the retraction might dilute momentum, forcing the opposition to pivot to ground-level issues like voter deletions.
Broader Implications: Safeguarding Democracy in a Data-Driven Era
This controversy transcends a deleted tweet, exposing fissures in India’s electoral fabric. It underscores the perils of unverified data in polarized discourse, where errors amplify misinformation. For academics like Kumar, it signals a chilling effect on independent research. The government’s heavy-handed response risks alienating moderates, while the ECI must rebuild trust through transparency.
In Bihar, the Yatra could evolve into a litmus test for opposition unity, but only if it transcends data wars to address core concerns like employment and governance. Ultimately, “Modi pantheon has no place for half devotees”—a reminder that in India’s democracy, loyalty often trumps truth.
Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
