The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) clarification comes amid escalating tensions between the ruling Mahayuti alliance and the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) following the frisking of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s bags. This incident has not only sparked a social media storm but has also intensified the war of words between key leaders from both alliances, with each side accusing the other of electoral misconduct and hypocrisy. According to sources within the ECI, the checks were conducted in adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) set forth under the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which aims to create a level playing field by conducting random inspections to prevent illicit distribution of cash, gifts, or other inducements that could sway voters unfairly.
Uddhav Thackeray himself highlighted this perceived inconsistency in a video he shared, questioning whether the same checks were applied to leaders from the ruling party. The video captures Thackeray challenging poll officials by asking, “The way you inspected my bag, did you inspect the bags of Modi and Shah?” He implied that opposition leaders are unfairly singled out for such checks, questioning the impartiality of the ECI's actions. Thackeray’s stance seemed to resonate with opposition members, who argue that the MCC is selectively applied to disadvantage opposition campaigns while overlooking similar measures for leaders of the ruling party.
The situation quickly escalated, with leaders from both sides weighing in. Aaditya Thackeray, Uddhav’s son and a prominent Shiv Sena (UBT) leader, shared the video online, expressing indignation at the treatment of his father by the election authorities. He labeled the Election Commission as “entirely compromised,” suggesting that it is under undue influence from the ruling BJP and serves its interests by selectively enforcing the MCC. Aaditya’s comments reflect a growing sentiment among opposition leaders who feel that government institutions, including the ECI, are not upholding their duty of neutrality during election periods. Aaditya took the argument further by questioning why high-ranking leaders of the BJP, such as Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, aren’t subject to similar security measures and inspections when campaigning in Maharashtra.
On the other side, Mahayuti leaders mocked Uddhav Thackeray’s reaction to the frisking, dismissing his response as an overreaction and even suggesting that Thackeray’s concern stemmed from fear of being caught with “stolen money.” These comments, intended to belittle Thackeray’s concerns, underscore the friction between the two alliances and reflect the aggressive campaign tactics being employed by both sides. Mahayuti members argue that the ECI’s actions are in line with ensuring a fair election and that all candidates should be subject to the same checks if they have nothing to hide.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, however, raised further allegations against the Mahayuti, claiming that Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar are actively distributing large sums of cash across the state to influence voters. Raut’s accusation implied that the Mahayuti is engaging in corrupt practices and questioned whether the ECI is also scrutinizing the bags and vehicles of ruling alliance leaders. “Does the Election Commission check the luggage and helicopters of Mahayuti leaders? Do Mahayuti leaders have only underwear in their bags?” Raut quipped, alluding to allegations that Mahayuti leaders are carrying cash rather than personal belongings.
Other prominent opposition leaders joined in to denounce the ECI’s frisking of Uddhav Thackeray, adding weight to the allegations of bias. Sharad Pawar, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) supremo and an influential figure in Maharashtra politics, voiced his discontent, suggesting that the frisking incident was a calculated move by the BJP to “trouble their opponents” and distract them from their campaign efforts. Pawar’s remarks align with the larger narrative that the opposition has been pushing, framing the BJP and its allies as using their power to weaponize institutions to tilt the electoral scales in their favor. Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) also condemned the ruling alliance, lending his voice to the chorus of opposition leaders who argue that the ECI’s actions reflect an underlying bias against the MVA.
The broader political climate in Maharashtra is at the heart of the issue, where the upcoming Assembly elections are likely to be fiercely contested. The BJP-led Mahayuti alliance, which includes Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena faction, is seeking to consolidate its power, while the MVA, comprising the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP, is positioning itself as a united front against what it perceives as authoritarian tactics by the ruling party. Uddhav Thackeray’s criticism of the frisking incident appears to be part of a larger campaign strategy aimed at painting the Mahayuti as untrustworthy and using state machinery to intimidate opposition figures. By questioning why BJP leaders aren’t subject to similar scrutiny, the opposition seeks to highlight alleged double standards and sway public opinion in their favor.
Meanwhile, the ECI maintains that it is simply following the MCC guidelines, which are intended to curb any attempts at influencing voters through cash or gifts. The Commission has emphasized that it is carrying out its duty impartially, conducting inspections across all parties to ensure a fair election process. Yet, as the elections draw closer, this incident has become symbolic of the deeper issues at play, with both the Mahayuti and MVA using it to bolster their respective narratives. While Mahayuti leaders view the opposition’s reaction as baseless, MVA leaders argue that the incident is part of a troubling trend of political harassment.
As Maharashtra heads toward a critical election, these exchanges underscore the stakes for both sides and the extent to which both alliances are willing to leverage every incident to gain an edge. The opposition's framing of the incident as an example of institutional bias aims to resonate with voters who may feel that democratic norms are under threat. Meanwhile, the ruling alliance’s dismissive stance signals its confidence in its campaign, and its focus on accusing the opposition of corruption is likely an effort to consolidate its base. The incident has thus evolved from a routine check into a microcosm of the broader political battle, amplifying the ideological divides and rhetorical strategies that will shape the Maharashtra Assembly election.
