New Delhi, April 23: The Indian National Congress on Thursday, April 23, formally wrote to the Election Commission of India (ECI) challenging the issuance of show-cause notices to party president Mallikarjun Kharge, pointing out serious procedural irregularities including duplicate notice numbers, conflicting signatories, and an unreasonably short 24-hour deadline to respond during an active election campaign period.

The Dual-Notice Controversy

The Congress, through a "summary response" filed by AICC General Secretary (Communications) Jairam Ramesh, flagged a striking anomaly: the party received two separate notices carrying the identical reference number F. No. 437/TN-LA/2026/SS-I (MCC Complaint), both dated April 22, 2026, but signed by two different officials of the Commission.

Making matters more confusing, one notice explicitly named Trinamool Congress leader Derek O'Brien as the complainant, citing his complaint dated April 21, 2026. However, a second version of the same notice — uploaded on the ECI's official website — conspicuously omitted O'Brien's name as the complainant.

"If one of the notices was withdrawn, there is no mention of it in either of the notices," the Congress letter stated, adding that the process reflected a "casual and routine manner" of acting on complaints from ruling parties without independent scrutiny.

Congress Demands Extension and Formal Hearing

The party strongly objected to the 24-hour response window, calling it wholly inadequate given the hectic schedule of an ongoing election campaign. Congress requested one full week to prepare a detailed legal reply and sought a formal hearing before a senior delegation of party leaders.

The letter accused the Commission of "non-application of mind" in issuing the notices and warned that the approach was contrary to the principles of natural justice. It also urged the ECI to review its past records to ensure consistent handling of complaints across all political parties.

Congress Turns the Tables: Citing BJP and PM Violations

In a significant counter-offensive, the Congress cited two instances it claimed constituted Model Code of Conduct (MCC) violations by the ruling establishment that had allegedly gone unaddressed by the Commission.

First, the party referenced remarks made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi following the failure of the government to pass the 131st Constitutional Amendment, alleging that the speech targeted the Congress at a time when multiple states were heading to elections.

Second, it cited a statement attributed to Home Minister Amit Shah, shared on the BJP's official social media platforms, which Congress described as a "quid pro quo" — an alleged promise of financial benefits in exchange for votes. The party argued both instances fall under undue influence and bribery as defined under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

"We also need hardly remind you of the numerous instances we have filed complaints against the PM and the HM, and NO ACTION was taken by you in the past," the letter pointedly noted.

Kharge's Clarification and Congress's Defence

On the substance of the remarks that triggered the notice, the Congress said Kharge had already issued a public clarification stating his comments were taken out of context. According to the party, the reference was specifically to the conduct of central agencies — the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Income Tax Department (IT), and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — and was not a personal attack on Prime Minister Modi.

The party accused the ECI of proceeding with the notice while deliberately ignoring this clarification, which was already in the public domain. "It almost seems that an attempt is being made to deliberately overlook the clear and unequivocal explanation... so as to find some way to take action against the Congress president. Unfortunately, it smacks of ulterior motives," the letter alleged.

Broader Implications: Opposition vs. Election Commission

This episode is part of a deepening pattern of friction between the opposition and the Election Commission of India during election seasons. Opposition parties, including the Congress, have repeatedly accused the ECI of applying asymmetric scrutiny — acting swiftly on complaints against opposition leaders while sitting on complaints against ruling party figures.

Notably, the involvement of Trinamool Congress's Derek O'Brien as the original complainant adds a layer of political complexity, given that the TMC and Congress are both part of the broader INDIA alliance opposing the BJP — raising questions about intra-alliance dynamics ahead of critical state polls.

The procedural irregularities flagged by Congress — two notices with the same number, signed by different officials, with inconsistent complainant details — could also raise questions about the ECI's internal administrative processes, potentially becoming a flashpoint in ongoing debates about the Commission's institutional credibility.

As elections continue across multiple states, all eyes will be on whether the ECI grants the extension sought by Congress, and how it reconciles the dual-notice anomaly — a decision that could set a significant procedural precedent for how the Commission handles MCC complaints going forward.