Video Editor: Kriti Saxena
"'Election Commission ne kiya hai toh theek hi kiya hoga' (It must be right if the Election Commission did it) — I could see that blind trust in 2019. But in 2024, there was a drastic change, not just among political parties but also among the people, which is not good for our country, not good for democracy," said investigative journalist Poonam Agarwal.
In 2018, Agarwal exposed the government's electoral bonds scheme for political funding by conducting an investigation that revealed the bonds had a hidden alphanumeric code only visible under UV light.
The investigation debunked the government's claims that the identity of the donor and the receiver of political donations made using the bonds remained anonymous.
Six years later, in 2024, when the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, calling it 'unconstitutional', Agarwal's investigation—conducted during her stint with The Quint—was one of the key arguments cited.
But over the years, India’s electoral process has come under increasing scrutiny. Meanwhile, Agarwal has conducted several other investigations into matters related to the Election Commission, which she has now collated in a book titled India Inked. Her aim, Agarwal said, is not to create mistrust about the polling agency.
"We are not saying that the EC should not be trusted. But the right questions need to be asked," Agarwal said.
On this episode of Badi Badi Baatein, Agarwal talks about her investigations, her new book, the questions surrounding the credibility of the EC, and the need for more accountability and transparency in India's polling processes.
The Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, calling it unconstitutional. They were also termed a form of legalised political bribery. In any mature democracy, that would have brought down the government. But do you think it had the kind of political impact that something as serious should have had?
The judgment on electoral bonds came just before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections—in February—and honestly, it was a little unexpected. The matter had been pending in the court for six years with no movement, so we didn’t anticipate anything big. When the hearing was listed, we thought maybe there would be a stay on the sale of electoral bonds, but no one expected the entire scheme to be struck down. It came as a surprise to many journalists and petitioners alike.
The judgment definitely had an impact. It was struck down for being unconstitutional. But more importantly, the lack of transparency was a core issue. In a democracy, elections and political funding are deeply linked—you can't separate them. If political funding is done in a non-transparent way, how do we know who’s donating how much to which party—and whether those parties returned favours to corporates?
The government’s justification was that donors needed anonymity because they were being "arm-twisted." But my investigation showed that each bond had a hidden alphanumeric code, which SBI recorded. That means the government could track the donor. So technically, the anonymity claim was false, and the government knew who was giving how much.
Was it also because opposition parties—who should’ve been raising their voices—were benefitting from the scheme too?
I remember in 2018 when I exposed the codes while working at The Quint, I had a detailed discussion with our editor Mr. Raghav Bahl and others about how to present the story. You’d be surprised—back then, even political parties didn’t fully understand the scheme. SBI had started selling bonds, but most people didn’t know what they were or how they worked.
When we published the report in April 2018, people didn't quite grasp the impact. It wasn’t just the general public—even many journalists didn’t understand it. In my book, I mention how some party members later reached out to understand the scheme. But even then, their focus was simple: “We need money to fight elections. If it’s coming via bonds, so be it.” Many experts told me that parties were happy to accept funds—whether through bonds or any other means. Their priority was winning elections, not how the money came.
So yes, they may make noise when in opposition, but how much they actually care is questionable.
You’ve also done a series of investigations on discrepancies between votes polled and votes counted. This has now become a mainstream issue—TMC even raised it, and the EC had to respond. What’s your take on this?
We were the first to report it at The Quint. EVMs showed a certain number of votes polled, but the final vote count didn’t always match. Sometimes it was more, sometimes less. Ahead of the 2024 elections, the issue came up again. The Supreme Court gave a clarification, and the EC said, “Oh, that was just provisional data.” They tried to brush it under the carpet—and succeeded.
From 2019 to 2024, there were multiple reports of discrepancies, and they were never addressed. Experts, activists, and political parties repeatedly demanded poll data, but the EC remained silent for several phases. When they finally released the data, there was no explanation.
When I first began investigating the EC, there was absolute trust in the institution. “Election Commission ne kiya toh theek hi kiya hoga”—that’s what people believed in 2019. But in 2024, that trust eroded—not just among political parties but the people too. And that’s dangerous. The EC is the doorkeeper of democracy—it decides who gets to form a government. If people don’t trust it, the foundation of democracy is shaken.
The credibility of the EC has been questioned before—ballot stuffing and missing boxes in pre-EVM days were common stories. Based on your experience, has the EC gotten worse or better at handling credibility issues?
The role of the EC and its leadership is crucial, especially once the Model Code of Conduct is in place. The EC becomes king—it has the authority to stop any candidate or action. In India Inked, I’ve written about how MCC was violated during the 2024 elections. The law applies equally to everyone—there’s no such thing as a “star campaigner” exemption.
What raises doubts is how the EC seems to apply rules differently. I’ve also explored the history of the EC in the book—from Sukumar Sen, India’s first CEC, to the evolution of symbols used for illiterate voters. Today, these symbols are the identity of parties—Lotus for BJP, Hand for Congress.
The EC is one of the most structured institutions—everything is documented. There’s a handbook for returning officers, presiding officers, and so on. That documentation helped me spot where the EC failed to follow its own rules.
But now, the issues never end—vote discrepancies, voter list errors, even EPIC numbers aren’t unique anymore. Meanwhile, the EC claims they may not share certain information—like CCTV footage or raw data—at their discretion. Why? That only fuels suspicion.
The EVM debate resurfaces after every election. What’s your view on this?
Here’s a simple answer—even a 10-year-old would get this. The Supreme Court once said candidates who lose—regardless of party—can ask for EVM verification. That includes BJP too.I try to stay away from political parties in my work.
About EVMs: they’re gadgets. If not tampered with, they work fine. But if you do tamper with them, they can malfunction. The EC refuses to share the source code, but any cyber expert will tell you—that’s essential to test vulnerability.
We’re not saying EVMs have been tampered with—just that they can be. That’s the concern.
Right now, we have VVPAT slips, which is good. But why not count all of them? Match every VVPAT with EVM votes—10 votes for BJP should mean 10 VVPATs too. The EC says it’ll take too long. But who’s in a rush? I'd rather wait a week for trustworthy results than get quick ones that raise doubts.
Media coverage of EC-related issues is often political, not constitutional. What's your take?
The EC is the doorkeeper of democracy. If the gatekeeper is compromised, what’s the point of reporting on who enters the house?
Media needs to ask the hard questions. Honestly, in 2024, digital media did a better job than TV channels, which largely ignored EC-related issues. Even big newspapers weren’t covering it with the seriousness it deserved.
So yes, part of the problem is the media not taking these issues to the grassroots. But some are doing it—and doing it right. And we’re not saying the EC shouldn’t be trusted. We’re saying it must be questioned—fairly and robustly.