Key Highlights:
- Pinky Juginder Kaushik denies vote fraud allegations, confirms she cast her own ballot in 2024 Haryana assembly elections using Aadhaar card despite photo misprint
- Rahul Gandhi claimed 25 lakh fake votes were cast in Haryana elections, citing Brazilian model’s photo appearing 22 times on voter rolls
- Election Commission of India dismissed allegations, noting zero appeals filed against electoral rolls and only 22 pending petitions across 90 assembly seats
Haryana Voter Fraud Allegations: Opening Overview
A woman named in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s explosive Haryana voter fraud allegations has come forward to deny any wrongdoing, calling the vote theft claims baseless and insisting she personally cast her ballot in the 2024 Haryana assembly elections. Pinky Juginder Kaushik, whose electoral card allegedly featured an image resembling a Brazilian model, explained to India Today TV that a long-standing photo misprint on her voter ID card was the result of clerical errors, not electoral fraud.
The controversy erupted after Gandhi’s November 5 press conference, where he alleged that 25 lakh fake votes, representing approximately 12 percent of Haryana’s electorate, were cast to manipulate election results. Gandhi presented what he termed “100 percent proof” of systematic manipulation, claiming a Brazilian model’s photograph appeared multiple times across voter rolls under different names like Seema, Sweety, and Saraswati. The Haryana voter fraud allegations have sparked intense political debate, with the Election Commission of India firmly rejecting Gandhi’s claims and the BJP dismissing them as politically motivated.
Rahul Gandhi’s big revelation 🚨
— Surbhi (@SurrbhiM) November 5, 2025
A photo of a Brazilian model was used to create 22 duplicate voter IDs under different names.
The same person cast votes in all 22 locations on the same day during the Haryana elections.#VoteChori pic.twitter.com/Ilm1kqKuMi
Haryana Voter Fraud Allegations: The Voter ID Misprint Controversy
Speaking exclusively to India Today TV, Pinky Juginder Kaushik clarified the circumstances surrounding her voter identification card that became central to the Haryana voter fraud allegations controversy. She confirmed that when she first applied for her voter card, it arrived with a photo misprint featuring the image of another woman from her village, not a Brazilian model as suggested in the allegations. Pinky stated, “I went myself to cast my vote in 2024. There’s no vote chori here.”
The family immediately returned the misprinted card to election officials, but a corrected version never arrived despite their complaints to the Booth Level Officer and election office. Consequently, Pinky cast her vote in the 2024 election using her voter slip and Aadhaar card as identification, following established procedures for voters with documentation issues.
Pinky’s brother-in-law strongly refuted the Haryana voter fraud allegations, calling them “propaganda” and insisting that she had personally voted without any irregularities. He emphasized, “The error must be on the part of the BLO or the election office. How is it my fault? When the mistake first happened, we had already requested rectification.” Similarly, India Today TV traced Munish Devi, another woman whose voter card was allegedly linked to the same photo, and found comparable explanations.
Munish’s brother-in-law explained that her photo had been mismatched earlier but was corrected at the polling booth, stating, “She cast her own vote. The error was in the slip, not in the vote.” In both cases, investigations revealed that the voter IDs had carried photo misprints featuring pictures of other women from the same village, not international models.
Rahul Gandhi’s Vote Theft Allegations
During his November 5 press conference titled “H Files,” Rahul Gandhi presented detailed Haryana voter fraud allegations of what he termed a “planned operation” to subvert democratic processes in Haryana. The Leader of Opposition claimed that Haryana had 2 crore voters, of which 25 lakh were fake, meaning approximately one in every eight voters was fraudulent.
Gandhi displayed slides showing alleged discrepancies in voter rolls, with the most striking example being a former Brazilian model’s photograph reportedly appearing multiple times under different names to cast ballots 22 times across 10 different booths. He questioned rhetorically, “Who is this lady? How old is she? Where is she from? She voted 22 times in Haryana, across 10 different booths in the state, using multiple names: Seema, Sweety, Saraswati.”
Gandhi asserted that his team had uncovered 5.21 lakh duplicate voter entries through systematic analysis of electoral rolls related to the Haryana voter fraud allegations. He further alleged that thousands of BJP workers and leaders were registered to vote in both Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, citing specific examples including a BJP leader with 66 voters registered at his address and another with 500 voters at his home.
The Congress leader claimed that exit polls had pointed to a Congress victory, but “for the first time in Haryana’s history, postal ballots didn’t match the actual votes.” Gandhi also highlighted irregularities involving addresses listed as “House no. Zero,” a designation meant for homeless individuals, where physical verification found people actually living in their own homes. He accused both the BJP and the Election Commission of collaborating to steal elections, warning that similar tactics would be employed in Bihar elections.
Election Commission’s Response and Official Data
The Election Commission of India categorically dismissed the Haryana voter fraud allegations, presenting counter-evidence that contradicted his claims of widespread voter fraud. Sources within the EC noted that zero appeals were filed against Haryana’s electoral rolls, and only 22 election petitions remain pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court across 90 assembly seats, indicating minimal legal challenges to the results. The Commission questioned why Congress polling agents did not raise objections at polling stations if they suspected duplicate voters during the voting process. Officials also challenged Gandhi’s assertion that duplicate entries favored the BJP, pointing out that many of these alleged votes went to Congress itself, making his conclusions illogical.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Haryana provided detailed official data about the electoral process to counter the Haryana voter fraud allegations. Draft Electoral Rolls for the 2024 Assembly elections were published and shared with recognized political parties on August 2, 2024, with a total of 4,16,408 claims and objections received during the Special Summary Revision. The state deployed 20,629 Booth Level Officers to manage the revision process, and Final Electoral Rolls were published on August 27, 2024, with no appeals filed against the Electoral Registration Officers or District Magistrates.
According to official statistics, 2,03,54,350 voters were registered in Haryana for the 2024 elections, comprising 1,07,75,957 men, 95,77,926 women, and 467 transgender voters. The election recorded a 67.9 percent voter turnout across 20,632 polling stations, with 1,38,19,776 total votes cast, closely matching the 68.3 percent turnout in 2019 Assembly elections.
The Brazilian Model Connection
The Brazilian woman whose photograph became central to the Haryana voter fraud allegations controversy was identified as Larissa Nery, a hairdresser who posed for the picture approximately eight years ago when she was around 18-20 years old. Expressing shock at the unexpected attention, Larissa told reporters, “They are using an old picture of me. I must have been about 18-20 years old… I don’t know if it’s an election, something about voting in India.” The photograph was taken by Matheus Ferrero, a Brazilian photographer whose portfolio includes portraits and fashion images readily available on stock photo platforms like Unsplash. Larissa clarified that she had never left Brazil, let alone traveled to India to participate in any election activities.
Rahul Gandhi mentioned during his press conference that the image could be traced online to photographer Matheus Ferrero, suggesting the photo was improperly sourced from public stock photography platforms. An independent investigation confirmed that Ferrero’s work appears on various online platforms, where images can be downloaded and potentially misused without proper authorization. Larissa’s reaction highlighted the unintended consequences of digital photography circulation, stating she was completely unaware her image had traveled across continents to become part of a major political controversy involving Haryana voter fraud allegations.
Reports confirmed that the photograph appeared multiple times across electoral rolls in the Rai assembly constituency under various names including Seema, Sweety, Saraswati, Rashmi, and Vilma. However, ground investigations by India Today TV revealed that the actual voters associated with those names had different explanations involving local photo misprints rather than systematic fraud.
Closing Assessment
The Haryana voter fraud allegations controversy has exposed complex issues surrounding electoral roll management, photo verification processes, and political allegations in India’s democratic system. While Pinky Juginder Kaushik and other women named in the Haryana voter fraud allegations have categorically denied any involvement in vote theft, confirming they cast their own ballots using legitimate identification methods, questions about voter ID photo accuracy remain.
The Election Commission’s robust defense, backed by official data showing 4,16,408 claims and objections processed during electoral roll revision, suggests systematic oversight mechanisms were functioning. However, the documented cases of photo misprints affecting multiple voters indicate procedural gaps in Booth Level Officer operations that require administrative attention. As political parties continue debating electoral integrity, the Haryana voter fraud allegations underscore the critical importance of accurate voter registration systems, timely correction mechanisms, and transparent verification processes in maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions.
