Archive · 11 Oct 2026
Karnataka High Court Stays FIRs Over BJP Agents’ Voter Forms
Two BJP booth-level agents are facing police cases over forms asking officials to remove voters’ names from the rolls.
One group of forms concerned 778 voters in Ward 64, and another concerned 136 voters in Ward 45.
The complainants say some voters were wrongly described as having moved away, and allege that forms may have involved impersonation or forged signatures.
They also allege that voters from particular communities were targeted.
The agents say they were allowed to submit objections and that election officials should review the forms first.
The Karnataka High Court agreed that officials had not yet decided whether the forms were valid.
It temporarily paused the cases while it considers the petitions.
The pause is not a final decision about whether the allegations are true.
The Karnataka High Court temporarily stayed proceedings in two FIRs against BJP booth-level agents G S Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R.
The FIRs concern 778 Form 7 objections in Ward 64 and 136 in Ward 45 during Bengaluru’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Complainants alleged that voters were wrongly marked absent or permanently shifted, and raised allegations of impersonation, forged signatures and community targeting.
The agents’ counsel argued the electoral authority should first examine the applications and decide whether names should be deleted.
The state and complainants sought investigation; the court said proceedings appeared premature before an electoral decision and stayed them until the next hearing.
- Who
- BJP booth-level agents G S Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R; the Karnataka High Court; state prosecutors and complainants.
- What
- The court temporarily stayed proceedings in two FIRs concerning bulk Form 7 voter-deletion objections.
- When
- The interim order was issued on Friday; the matter is scheduled for a further hearing next month.
- Where
- The applications concern Ward 64 and Ward 45 in Bengaluru’s Malleshwaram Assembly constituency.
- Why
- The court considered investigation premature because the competent electoral authority had not yet decided on the Form 7 applications.
Petitioners’ position
State and complainants’ position
Whether investigation is premature
Petitioners’ position
The agents’ counsel argued that they were authorised to submit objections and that electoral officials should decide on the Form 7 applications before criminal proceedings proceed.
State and complainants’ position
The state and complainants argued that allegations of impersonation, forgery and false information warranted police investigation.
Bulk applications and alleged targeting
Petitioners’ position
The petitioners maintained that the prescribed electoral process allows officials to scrutinise and accept or reject objections; they argued that bulk filing alone does not establish criminality.
State and complainants’ position
The state raised concerns that applications exceeded prescribed limits, while the complainants alleged a conspiracy to target voters from particular communities.
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Judge
- Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
- Petitioners
- G S Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, BJP booth-level agents
- Ward 64 applications
- 778 objections concerning electors across eight parts
- Ward 45 applications
- 136 objections concerning electors
- Form 7
- A form used to object to a proposed inclusion or deletion of a name from an existing electoral roll
- Interim order
- Proceedings stayed until the next hearing; respondents may seek modification or vacation of the order
