NEW DELHI – A judicial magistrate court in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, has directed police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate allegations that Form-7 applications were fraudulently submitted in the name of a Booth Level Agent (BLA-2) to seek the deletion of 28 voters from the electoral rolls. The matter came to light after the complainant and petitioner–Ikram Ali — himself the BLA-2 in question whose identity had been purportedly fraudulently misused –had filed complaints for redressal. Alleging that he informed concerned election officials in writing, and when faced with silence sent his complaint to the Banbhoolpura police station by speed post on August 24, which was received by the police on August 27, according to the court order. The order was passed on October 6, The grave issue has been reported in Hindustan, Dainik Jagran and Hindustan Gazette.
After allegedly receiving no effective action at the police station, Ali submitted yet another complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, on August 29. The complaint was received on August 31, the order recorded. However, the court noted that despite the complaints, no FIR had been registered and no effective investigative action had been taken, prompting Ali to approach the magistrate. In its order, the court examined the police report sought in the matter as is required under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.[1]
Advocate Manish Kumar Pandey, represents complainant, Ikram Ali, a resident of Indiranagar in Banbhulpura. While rejecting the stay application, the court scheduled the next hearing on the revision petition for December 7, 2026, noting that the non-registration of an FIR to date is also a serious matter.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shubhangi Gupta, in an order dated October 6, accepted a petition filed by Ikram Ali, a resident of Ward No. 31 in Haldwani, under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court directed the officer in charge of Banbhoolpura police station to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint received on August 24 and investigate the matter in accordance with law.
The Magistrate’s order relates to serious illegalities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Ali, the petitioner and original complainant before the police, has reportedly told the court that he was working as a BLA-2 during the revision process when he learnt on August 20 that Form-7 applications had been submitted online in his name on August 12, seeking the deletion of 28 voters from Part No. 134 of the electoral roll. According to the petition, Ali denied submitting any such applications, either for himself or on behalf of any other voter. He also denied authorising anyone to file them in his name.
In the petition, Ali alleged that unidentified persons had misused his identity to prepare and submit the applications, purportedly presenting themselves as him before the election office. Ali has also contended that he informed the concerned election officials in writing after learning about the applications. He subsequently sent a written complaint to Banbhoolpura police station by speed post on August 24, which was received by the police on August 27, according to the court order.
It was only after he reportedly received no effective action at the police station, that Ali submitted another complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, on August 29. The complaint was received on August 31, the order stated. The court observed that despite the complaints, no FIR had been registered and no effective investigative action had been taken, prompting Ali to approach the magistrate.
In the first instance, as observed by the court in its order, the court examined the police report sought in the matter. The report stated that the complaint concerned alleged forgery and identity theft in connection with SIR Form-7 applications. It also suggested that the complainant could raise his objection before the relevant Assistant Returning Officer under the existing procedure.
According to available media reports, Ikram Ali, the BLA-2 in question has stated that he reached Delhi on October 30, where he met senior Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and P. Chidambaram. In addition, he met with more than 20 MPs and senior leaders of the INDIA alliance, including a representative of SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti. Ikram informed all the leaders about the misuse of portal IDs and the deletion of voters’ names from the list using fake identities in Haldwani’s Indiranagar area. According to Ikram, all the leaders assured him that they are keeping a close watch on the matter and will take the issue forward.
The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is no longer limited to concerns about voters being asked to prove their eligibility or submit forms to remain on the rolls. The conscious and deliberate misuse of Form 7 for third party deletions, that too by dominant political actors, has been a recurring aspect of the controversial SIR process.
Widely reported investigations by The Hindu, both in Delhi and Karnataka have raised another serious question: who can or should initiate the process for deletion of voters, on what basis, and how effectively are such deletion processes being checked?
Detailed directions by the Court
In the Order dated October 6, the magistrate held that the availability of an alternative remedy before the election authorities was not sufficient grounds to reject the plea seeking a police investigation.
“The remedy available before the Assistant Returning Officer and the relief sought by the applicant operate in different fields and are not alternatives to each other,” the court observed.
The court noted that the election authority’s role was limited to matters such as correction and maintenance of electoral rolls, whereas the complaint concerned an alleged offence committed by unidentified persons.
The order of the court further observes that the relevant election authority did not have the power to investigate the criminal offence or obtain electronic records such as user IDs and login details, registered mobile numbers and email addresses, OTP and authentication information, IP addresses, and device-related records that could help identify those responsible.
The court said the mere availability of an alternative remedy was not sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition.
The magistrate referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in *Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh* (2014) 2 SCC 1 and *Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.* (2015) 6 SCC 287 while examining the requirements for directing police action.
Referring to *Lalita Kumari*, the court noted that where information prima facie discloses a cognisable offence, registration of an FIR is a legal duty of the police, followed by an investigation in accordance with law.
The court also observed that the police report had not rejected the complainant’s allegations or stated that no cognisable offence was made out. Nor did it refer to any investigation conducted at the police-station level.
The magistrate said that, at first glance, the alleged submission of applications in the complainant’s name by concealing his actual identity and impersonating him in official proceedings appeared to fall within the scope of a suspected criminal offence.
The court clarified, however, that it was not expressing a final opinion on the offences involved, which would have to be determined during the investigation.
Allowing the petition, the court directed the officer in charge of Banbhoolpura police station to register an FIR on the basis of Ali’s complaint dated August 24, 2026, and investigate the case in accordance with law.
It also ordered that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the concerned police station.
The order does not establish who submitted the disputed Form-7 applications or whether the 28 voters were ultimately removed from the electoral rolls. Those issues remain subject to investigation.
[1] Unlike its predecessor, Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure this section—175 (3) has controversially added “several procedural” steps ostensibly to prevent misuse of magisterial powers. These include submission of the said complaint to the Superintendant of Police (SP), accompanied by an affidavit as also recording of the police version.
Related:
SIR: Form 7 controversies raise fresh questions about the continued power to delete voters