SIR: Karnataka High Court grants relief to BJP booth agents booked for attempting to delete voters

The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed proceedings against two booth-level agents (BLAs) of the BJP in separate cases alleging attempts to delete particular community voters’ names from electoral rolls in Bengaluru’s Malleshwaram Assembly constituency during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that the FIRs appeared to be premature, as the competent electoral authority had not yet taken a decision on the Form 7 applications seeking deletion of voters’ names.

“The concerned officer will decide. Nothing to do with the police. What is the offence here?” the Court orally asked during the hearing.

The Court was hearing separate petitions filed by GS Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, challenging FIRs registered over allegations that Form 7 applications had been submitted to delete the names of particular community voters who continued to reside in the constituency.

The first FIR registered in Vyalikaval police station concerns applications seeking the deletion of 778 voters’ names in Ward No. 64, while the second registered at Yeshwanthapura station relates to objections concerning 136 voters in Ward No. 45.

Both petitioners contended that they were authorised agents of a political party and were entitled to submit applications under the prescribed electoral process.

Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the complaints were premature since the competent electoral authority had not yet adjudicated the Form 7 applications.

He argued that under the existing statutory framework, applications submitted in Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8 had to be processed by the competent authorities, who would examine objections and decide whether names should be added to or deleted from the electoral rolls.

He further submitted that the Chief Electoral Officer’s notification provided for action under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in cases involving false statements or declarations in the prescribed forms, with consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

He contended that the complaints could not be used to bypass the statutory mechanism governing electoral roll revision and that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the criminal offences invoked against the petitioners.

Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar opposed the petitions, submitting that the allegations of impersonation and forgery warranted investigation.

He argued that the petitioners had submitted applications in excess of the permissible limit prescribed under the relevant rules and regulations.

Bulk submission of applications seeking deletion of voters’ names raised concerns requiring investigation, he said.

Complainant's advocate, Shatabish Shivanna, submitted that the manner in which the Form 7 applications had been filed warranted investigation.

He argued that the applications were filed in bulk as part of a conspiracy to identify and target voters belonging to particular communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs).

The Court, however, questioned the basis for initiating criminal proceedings before the competent electoral authority had determined whether the voters concerned were eligible to remain on the rolls.

“Bulk applications to be filed to either include or remove voters. Any officer is appointed under the statute; he may say some are allowed, some are rejected. What is criminality in this? If somebody is entitled to 50 objections or 10 objections a day and is filing more objections than what is permitted, excess objections will be removed. No difficulty. The remaining objections are within the prescribed ceiling limit and that will be considered and accordingly orders will be passed. Some names may be added or deleted. What is the basis for lodging a criminal complaint?” the Court asked.

It also questioned the criminality in the filing of bulk applications through the prescribed electoral process.

“When is the election? What is the apprehension?” the Court asked.

After considering the submissions and examining the records, the Court noted that the petitioners were authorised agents of a political party and that the competent authority had admittedly not taken a decision on the Form 7 applications.

“In that situation, the Court is of the view that before the decision is taken, there cannot be any prima facie view for investigation” the Court ordered.

The Court accordingly stayed the proceedings until the next date of hearing, while permitting the respondents to seek modification or vacation of the interim order.

The matter will be heard next on October 27.

The petitions were filed through One Law Advocates.