‘What Is The Offence Here?’ Karnataka HC Stays FIRs Against BJP Agents Over 778 Voter Deletion Applications In Malleshwaram

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed criminal proceedings against two booth-level agents of the BJP, giving them a big interim relief. The cases relate to alleged attempts to delete names of voters belonging to particular communities from the rolls in Bengaluru's Malleshwaram Assembly constituency during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

The order came on Friday from Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in connection with the SIR of rolls in Malleshwaram. The judge observed that the cases looked premature at this stage, pointing out that the electoral officer who is empowered to decide on Form 7 deletion applications had not passed any order.

During the hearing, the Court orally remarked, "The concerned officer will decide. Nothing to do with the police. What is the offence here?" It was also said that without a decision from the statutory authority, a case for police investigation could not be made out.

Two FIRs Over 914 Deletion Applications

The petitions before the Court were moved by GS Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, who had challenged two separate FIRs lodged at Vyalikaval and Yeshwanthapura police stations.

According to the prosecution, the Vyalikaval case involves 778 applications filed for Ward No. 64 seeking deletion of electors, while the Yeshwanthapura case involves 136 such applications for Ward No. 45. The complainants alleged that the applications targeted voters of specific communities who were still residing in the constituency.

The agents stressed that as authorised representatives of a political party, they were permitted to file objections under the prescribed procedure. Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for them, emphasised that the complaints had been filed even before the competent authority had examined the Form 7 requests.

He explained that the law provides a full mechanism for handling Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8, under which the electoral officer scrutinises objections and decides on inclusion or deletion. He referred to the notification issued by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), which provides for action under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, for false declarations, attracting consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. In his submission, using criminal complaints to sidestep this statutory route was impermissible, and the facts alleged did not meet the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.

Prosecution Claims Conspiracy

Opposing the plea, Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar argued that there were allegations of impersonation and forgery that needed to be investigated. He suggested that the number of applications filed went beyond the daily limit prescribed under the rules and that such bulk filing raised serious concerns.

Advocate Shatabish Shivanna, representing the complainants, contended that the pattern of filing indicated a larger conspiracy. He alleged that voters belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) had been identified and targeted for deletion through bulk Form 7 submissions.

The bench was not convinced about initiating criminal action at this stage. It asked how bulk filing, which the law contemplates for inclusion or exclusion, could by itself become a criminal act. The Court asserted that the officer appointed under the statute could allow some pleas and reject others, and that was part of the process.

The judge further noted that if an applicant exceeded the permitted quota of 10 or 50 objections per day, the extra applications would simply be discarded, while those within the ceiling would still be taken up for consideration. The Court questioned, "What is the basis for lodging a criminal complaint? ……. When is the election? What is the apprehension?" to understand the urgency shown by the complainants.

Considering that the petitioners were authorised agents and that no decision had admittedly been taken on the Form 7 applications, the Court concluded, "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 interim stay will operate till the next date, with liberty to the respondents to seek modification or vacation of the order. 

The petitions were filed through One Law Advocates and the matter will be heard next on October 27.