4 hrs ago
Karnataka High Court Stays Probe Into BJP Agents’ Voter Deletion Cases
Two BJP booth-level agents are accused of filing forms that could remove voters from Karnataka’s electoral lists.
The forms were submitted for voters in two Bengaluru wards.
The agents say they were allowed to file the forms and that the cases against them began too soon.
The state and the complainant say someone may have pretended to be an agent and filed forms against real voters.
They also say too many forms may have been submitted.
The Karnataka High Court has temporarily stopped the police investigations while it considers the petitions.
The court has asked the state and complainant to respond.
The case is due back in court next month.
The Karnataka High Court stayed further investigation into criminal cases against two BJP booth-level agents accused of submitting fraudulent Form 7 voter-deletion applications.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said the court’s interim stay would remain until the next hearing, scheduled for next month.
The cases concern alleged Form 7 objections involving 778 voters in Ward 64 and 136 voters in Ward 45 in Bengaluru.
The petitioners’ lawyer argued the agents were authorized to submit the forms and that prosecution was premature; the state and complainant alleged impersonation and bulk filings beyond Election Commission limits.
The court notified the state and complainant Anoop Iyengar and asked them to file objections; the agents face charges of impersonation.
- Who
- BJP booth-level agents G S Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R; the Karnataka High Court; the state and complainant Anoop Iyengar.
- What
- The High Court temporarily stayed further investigation into criminal cases alleging impersonation in Form 7 voter-deletion applications.
- Where
- Karnataka, in cases concerning Bengaluru Ward 64 and Ward 45.
- When
- The interim order was issued on Friday; the matter is posted for hearing next month.
- Why
- The petitions argued that investigation was premature before the election authority decided on the Form 7 applications; the complainant and state allege impersonation and improper bulk submissions.
Petitioners’ position
State and complainant’s position
Whether the investigation is premature
Petitioners’ position
The petitioners’ lawyer argued that the agents were authorized to file Form 7 and that prosecution before the competent authority decides on the forms is premature.
State and complainant’s position
The state and complainant argued that forms were allegedly filed through impersonation against genuine voters, and that bulk submissions breached Election Commission limits.
Who submitted or signed the forms
Petitioners’ position
The petitioners’ lawyer said the agent had not denied filing Form 7 and was authorized to do so.
State and complainant’s position
The complainants alleged that signatures varied and that someone may have forged a signature or filed applications in an agent’s name.
Key facts
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Judge
- Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
- Petitioners
- BJP booth-level agents G S Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R
- Ward 64 applications
- Objections concerning 778 electors across eight parts
- Ward 45 applications
- Objections concerning 136 electors
- Form 7 purpose
- To object to a proposed inclusion or deletion of a name from an existing electoral roll
- Next hearing
- Next month
Quotes
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Karnataka High Court judge who issued the interim stay
“The competent authority has not taken any decision on the submitted Form 7; it is submitted that before a decision is taken, a procedure is to be followed as prescribed under the rules. This court is of the prima facie view that before a decision is taken on the Form 7, prima facie there cannot be an investigation. Hence the proceedings are stayed till the next date of hearing.”
indianexpress.com








