Karnataka SIR: High Court Stays FIRs Against BJP Booth Level Agents For Attempting To Delete Voter Names

The Karnataka High Court has stayed the operation of two FIRs registered against BJP Booth Level Agents over allegations that they sought to delete voters' names from electoral rolls by filing bulk Form-7 objections during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the Malleshwaram Assembly Constituency.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde granted the interim relief on two separate writ petitions filed by the agents yesterday.

Both agents, G.S. Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, sought quashing of the FIRs on complaints filed by a politician from the Indian National Congress who contested the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election from the Malleshwaram Constituency. The FIRs being assailed were registered by Vyalikaval P.S and Yeshwanthpura P.S in Bengaluru.

There were disputed Form-7 objections with regard to 778 voters in 8 booths by Vasanthalakhsmi, and Form-7 objections with regard to 136 voters in Booth 68 by Deepak R. The complainant alleged that during the SIR of electoral rolls, the petitioners submitted Form-7 objections seeking deletion of voters' names from the electoral rolls, by showing electors as “absent” or “permanently shifted”, despite their alleged continued residence in the constituency.

The FIRs further alleged that the signatures on several forms differed, indicating a possibility that either the petitioners or someone else were forging the said signatures in the form, with an intent to furnish false information through such applications.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the offences alleged with respect to Form-7 was non cognizable and bailable, and it cannot be investigated by the police without an order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

The FIR had also invoked Section 217(b) of the BNS (giving false information to a public servant to cause injury), which according to the petitioners, cannot be taken cognizance of without a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their authorised superior. In the instant case, Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (AERO) who would be the designated public servant to whom the alleged false information was given had filed no complaint, the petitioners argue. On the other hand, the complaint was filed by a political rivel, the pleas state.

Section 22 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 r/w Rule 13(2) of the Rules, 1960 permits any person whose name is already there on the electoral roll to object, in Form 7, to the inclusion of any other name, the pleas contend. There is no ceiling on the number of objections a person or a Booth Level Agent could file in the Act, Rules or in the booklet on SIR, the petitioners say.

If irregularities were found, action ought to lie under Section 31 of the RP Act through the concerned ECI officer, not the police, the petitioners say further.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, along with Advocates Vasantha Kumara, Aiyappa K.G., Abhilash C., T. Chanvi Madappa appeared for the petitioners.