BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka on Friday stayed the FIRs registered against two Booth Level Agents (BLAs) of BJP, G S Vasantha Lakshmi and Deepak Singh R, on charges of submitting Form 7 objections in respect of 778 electors of Ward No. 64 and in respect of 136 electors of Ward No.45, respectively, of the Malleswaram Assembly constituency, during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the interim order after hearing the petitions filed by Vasantha Lakshmi and Deepak Singh— questioning the legality of the registration of the FIRs by Anoop Iyengar, who contested from the Congress in Malleswaram in the 2023 elections— at Yeshwanthpur police station on October 2 and 5.
It was alleged that Form 7s were submitted saying those electors were absent or permanently shifted, though they were residing in the constituency, targeting a particular community by the workers of the BJP and RSS.
It was submitted through the petitions before the court that the petitioners are BLAs and were merely discharging their duties as envisaged under the notification dated June 23, 2026, issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, which sets out the role of BLAs in the SIR. Under this notification, the BLOs are required to go through the draft electoral roll with the BLAs of recognised political parties and identify the corrections to be carried out.
Contending that the lodging and decision of claims and objections are governed by Part III of the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, the petitioners stated that the offence under Section 31 of the RP Act, being punishable with imprisonment up to one year, is non-cognisable and bailable under the BNSS.
The police cannot investigate such an offence without an order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS. However, registration of the impugned FIRs has sought to bypass the mandatory statutory restrictions, thereby making a non-cognisable offence into a cognisable offence carrying punishment up to 7 years, they stated.
It was also stated in the petitions that Section 22 of the RP Act read with Rule 13(2) permits any person whose name is already included in the roll to object, in Form 7, to the inclusion of any other name and there is no bar on an elector to file bulk objections.
Under Section 13CC of the RP Act, the ERO, AERO, BLA and BLOs engaged in the revision are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The receipt, scrutiny and disposal of Form 7 objections, and the decision on them, are functioning squarely within the domain of ECI and its officials.
However, in this case, parallel police investigation into the veracity of objections still pending before the electoral machinery, set in motion by a private political rival, would interfere with a constitutional function midway through its exercise, the petitioners alleged.