Karnataka High Court Stays Cases Against BJP Booth Agents: the electoral authority has not yet decided the Form 7 applications that led to the FIRs. The allegations are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Proceedings against two booth-level agents (BLAs) of the BJP, booked over Form 7 applications filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bengaluru’s Malleshwaram Assembly constituency, stand stayed until the next hearing on October 27, the Karnataka High Court ordered on Friday (October 9) [GS Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R v. Respondents].
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, who heard the two petitions challenging the FIRs, also permitted the respondents to seek modification or vacation of the interim order.
What is the offence before the officer decides?
In the course of the hearing, the Court orally asked what the offence was before the officer had decided, observing that excess objections over a prescribed ceiling can simply be removed while the rest are considered. In its order it recorded:
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 two FIRs
One FIR, registered at Vyalikaval police station, concerns Form 7 applications seeking deletion of 778 voters’ names in Ward No. 64. The other, at Yeshwanthapura station, concerns objections relating to 136 voters in Ward No. 45. Both allege that the applications sought to delete the names of voters of a particular community who continued to reside in the constituency. The petitioners contend that they are authorised agents of a political party, entitled to file applications under the prescribed process.
For the petitioners
Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam submitted that the complaints were premature, since the competent authority had not yet adjudicated the Form 7 applications. Applications in Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8, he argued, must be processed by the competent authorities, who examine objections and decide whether names are added or deleted. The Chief Electoral Officer’s notification, he said, provides for action under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for false statements or declarations. The complaints could not be used to bypass that mechanism, he submitted, and the ingredients of the offences invoked were not made out.
For the State and the complainant
Opposing the petitions, Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar submitted that the allegations of impersonation and forgery warranted investigation and that the petitioners had filed applications beyond the permissible limit. Bulk submission of applications seeking deletion, he said, raised concerns that required investigation.
Appearing for the complainant, Advocate Shatabish Shivanna argued that the applications were filed in bulk as part of a conspiracy to target voters from particular communities, including Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners deny the allegations.
ALSO READ: Belagavi Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP Leader In Form 7 Case Over 198 Voters
What the stay rests on
The stay follows the sequence of the statutory process. The Court noted that the petitioners are authorised agents of a political party and that the competent authority had admittedly not yet decided the Form 7 applications. It is an interim order only.
Whether the filing of bulk applications attracts criminal liability remains open. The State and the complainant are free to seek modification or vacation of the stay, and the presumption of innocence applies to the petitioners.
Case Title: GS Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R (separate petitions challenging FIRs)
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Next Date: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam (petitioners, instructed by One Law Advocates); Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar (State); Advocate Shatabish Shivanna (complainant)