Supreme Court Halts FIRs Against Psephologist Sanjay Kumar in Maharashtra Voter Data Row
Supreme Court on Monday provided significant relief to renowned psephologist Sanjay Kumar by staying proceedings in two FIRs filed against him over an erroneous tweet on Maharashtra’s voter data, amid a heated political debate on alleged electoral irregularities. The interim order from a bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai came as Kumar sought to quash the cases, arguing that his mistake was unintentional and promptly corrected with a public apology.
Kumar, co-director of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), found himself in legal crosshairs after posting data analysis that suggested dramatic fluctuations in voter numbers between the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the recent Maharashtra assembly polls. He claimed voter counts surged by 47% in Nashik West and 43% in Hingna, while dropping sharply by 38% in Ramtek and 36% in Devlali. These figures inadvertently bolstered opposition claims, including those from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, of “vote theft” and manipulation by the Election Commission, particularly in the context of Bihar’s ongoing electoral roll revisions.
The Maharashtra Police responded swiftly, registering FIRs in Nagpur’s Ramtek and Nashik’s Deolali for allegedly spreading false information and potential election-related violations. However, Kumar quickly retracted the post on August 19, issuing a tweet that read, “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. I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation.”
During the Supreme Court hearing, Kumar’s counsel highlighted his long-standing reputation, stating, “30 years of conscientious service to the nation and to the world. He is highly respected. It was a mistake. He apologized.” Chief Justice Gavai noted the withdrawal, remarking, “You withdrew also,” to which the counsel replied, “I deleted, I apologized publicly, after that, an FIR!” The bench, also comprising Justice NV Anjaria, issued notices to the respondents and granted the stay, though the CJI observed, “Normally we would not have entertained this,” signaling the court’s cautious approach to such petitions.
The controversy has drawn sharp political reactions, with the BJP lambasting Kumar as a “protégé of Yogendra Yadav.” Party leader Amit Malviya took to X to criticize, saying, “Incidentally, when was the last time this protégé of Yogendra Yadav ever got anything right? In all his projections in the run-up to every single election, the BJP is supposedly losing—and when the reverse happens, he turns up on TV justifying how the BJP won. Convenient.” This jab underscores the polarized lens through which electoral analyses are viewed, especially as opposition figures like Gandhi have ramped up attacks on the Election Commission, accusing it of bias toward the ruling party.
Kumar’s case highlights the perils of misinformation in a digitally charged political environment, where data errors can quickly escalate into legal battles and fuel narratives of electoral fraud. While the stay offers temporary respite, the court’s final decision on quashing the FIRs could set precedents for handling similar incidents involving public figures and social media.