On 19th August, the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), a body under the Ministry of Education which funds the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), strongly criticised the fake data fiasco involving CSDS’s Sanjay Kumar. In a statement, ICSSR said that Kumar’s false claims on Maharashtra’s electoral rolls and their subsequent amplification against the Election Commission of India (ECI) amounted to a “gross violation of the Grant-in-Aid rules”. The council announced that a show cause notice would be issued to CSDS for its conduct.
It has come to the notice of ICSSR that an individual holding responsible position at CSDS, an ICSSR-funded research institute, has made media statements that had to be retracted subsequently citing glitches in data analysis regarding elections in Maharashtra.
— Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) (@icssr) August 19, 2025
Futher, the…
In its statement, ICSSR noted that the incident had brought disrespect to both the institute and the electoral process. The statement read, “It has come to the notice of ICSSR that an individual holding responsible position at CSDS, an ICSSR-funded research institute, has made media statements that had to be retracted subsequently citing glitches in data analysis regarding elections in Maharashtra.
Further, the institute has published media stories based on biased interpretation of the SIR exercise by the Election Commission of India.
ICSSR holds the Indian constitution in highest esteem. Election Commission of India is a high constitutional body which has been holding free and fair elections in the largest democracy of world for decades together.
ICSSR takes serious cognizance of the data manipulation by CSDS and its attempt to create a narrative with the intention of undermining the sanctity of the Election Commission of India. This is a gross violation of the Grant-in-Aid rules of ICSSR, and ICSSR shall issue a Show Cause Notice to the Institute.”
How the fake data fiasco unfolded
The controversy began when Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera posted a graphic on X on 18th August and claimed massive discrepancies between the 2024 Lok Sabha and Maharashtra Assembly electoral rolls.
Citing Lokniti-CSDS data, he claimed that Ramtek and Deolali constituencies lost nearly 40% of their electorate within six months. On the other hand, Nashik West and Hingna gained around 45%. He mocked ECI and wrote, “Next they will announce that 2 plus 2 equals 420.” The figures were first pushed by Sanjay Kumar himself.
In his now-deleted post on 17th August, Kumar claimed that Nashik West’s electorate had swelled from 3,28,053 in the Lok Sabha rolls to 4,83,459 in the Assembly rolls which was around 47.38%. For Hingna, he claimed an increase of 42.08%. These figures suggested abnormal and implausible growth. They were promptly amplified by opposition leaders including Khera as they questioned the credibility of the Election Commission.
However, on 19th August, within 48 hours of his post on social media platform X, Sanjay Kumar issued a public apology. He admitted that the figures were wrong. He claimed that his “data team misread rows” while comparing the datasets.
He further noted that the original post was deleted and claimed there was “no intent to spread misinformation”. However, the damage was already done, with the false figures circulated widely and poised to linger in political forwards and social media posts.
The real numbers expose the falsehood
Official data published on the website of the Election Commission of India showed that the discrepancies claimed in Sanjay Kumar’s post never existed. OpIndia’s fact-check confirmed that Sanjay Kumar’s figures were grossly inflated.
While confirming the data, OpIndia found that in Nashik West, the actual electorate increased from 4,56,319 in the Lok Sabha to 4,83,719 in the Assembly rolls, a modest rise of 27,400 or six per cent, nowhere near the 1.5 lakh jump he claimed. In Hingna, the increase was 25,298 (from 4,24,454 to 4,50,439), far below the exaggerated 43 per cent.
Similarly, in Ramtek, the electorate rose from 2,76,827 to 2,87,301, an increase of just 10,474 or 3.8 per cent, not a collapse of 40 per cent as claimed. Deolali saw a rise of 11,216 (from 2,77,600 to 2,88,816), contradicting the claim of a steep fall.
These numbers were enough to demonstrate how Sanjay Kumar’s numbers were nothing more than “misread rows” in a spreadsheet. It was evident that his team neither double checked nor compared constituency abstracts correctly, ignoring the basic standards of data verification.
The larger concern
While Kumar dismissed the fiasco as a technical error, the episode highlighted an alarming lack of diligence at a taxpayer-funded research institute. ICSSR has made it clear in its response that the issue goes beyond a “misread row” and falls under violation of grant rules. Given the damage already caused to the credibility of the ECI and the future impact of sharing the fake data on platforms like WhatsApp, it is essential for the ICSSR and the ECI to take strict action against CSDS. The notice now issued to CSDS is likely to put the institute’s practices under deeper scrutiny.
