Karnataka High Court Stays Police Action Over Form 7 Voter Deletion Row

The Karnataka High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on two separate First Information Reports registered against two booth-level agents over allegations of submitting bulk Form 7 applications to delete voter names in Bengaluru. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde issued the order after hearing writ petitions filed by G.S. Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, who challenged the police investigation initiated against them.

The case stems from complaints lodged by local politician Anoop Iyengar, who contested the 2023 Assembly election from Malleshwaram on the Indian National Congress ticket. The complainant alleged that during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, the two booth agents submitted Form 7 objections seeking the removal of 778 voters in eight booths and 136 voters in another booth by falsely claiming electors were absent or permanently shifted. The FIRs further claimed that signatures on several objection forms varied, raising suspicion of forgery and furnishing false information.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Arun Shyam argued that booth-level agents are legally authorised under Election Commission guidelines to submit claims and objections concerning electoral lists. He contended that the police action was premature because the statutory process requires designated electoral authorities to examine and adjudicate each objection independently before any conclusion of illegality can be drawn.

During the proceedings, Justice Hegde questioned the legal basis of the criminal complaints, observing that the competent authority had not yet evaluated or decided on the submitted Form 7 applications. The bench noted that the statutory mechanism under electoral laws outlines specific procedures for verifying objections and issuing notices to affected voters, making police intervention at this preliminary stage unwarranted.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar defended the police action, arguing that the volume of submissions exceeded normal operational limits and indicated an intent to disenfranchise genuine voters improperly. State counsel maintained that the investigation was necessary to uncover potential impersonation and systemic irregularities in handling sensitive electoral data.

The High Court has issued formal notices to the state government and the original complainant, directing them to file detailed statements of objections. The matter has been posted for further hearing next month, while the interim protection shields the petitioners from coercive police steps.