Police in Mangaluru and Kodagu have registered three FIRs over complaints that bulk Form 7 applications were submitted to remove voters from Karnataka’s electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The complainants say the voters named in the applications continued to live at their registered addresses. The allegations are under investigation.
Kavoor police in Mangaluru registered two cases on October 5 and 6, following directions from a local court. Both concern the Edurupadavu and Shivanagar polling booths in the Moodbidri Assembly constituency.
In the first complaint, Anisha and Ayish Bhanu alleged that a person named Kishan submitted Form 7 applications seeking the removal of 68 voters from the two booths. In the second, Abdul Lateef, Nebisa, Mohammed Altaf, Mohammed Asfak, Fayaz and Akbar alleged that applications had been submitted to remove a further 68 voters from the same booths.
Kishan, Rithesh, Yuvaraj and Shashikala are named as accused in both Mangaluru FIRs. The complaints allege that the applications contained false information. Police will examine the applications and the evidence behind the claims. The New Indian Express reported the two cases and the allegations made in them.
The third FIR was registered at Shanivarasanthe police station in Kodagu after Safwan G.M. complained that applications had been filed against members of his family. Safwan lives in Doddakunda village and is registered at Byadagotta Polling Booth No. 21.
Safwan alleged that the applications sought to remove 19 members of his family, all of whom live in the village and vote at the same polling booth. He said the matter came to light on October 1.
He further alleged that a pre-filled Form 7 objection was submitted to Booth Level Officer Nirmala. According to the complaint, it said a physical check had been made at the family’s residence, and the members had been found absent or ineligible. Safwan also alleged that applications sought the removal of 64 Muslim voters registered at the same booth.
Five people are named as accused in the Shanivarasanthe FIR: Lokesh U.H., identified as the BJP booth president in Byadagotta; his wife Rajani, described as a Booth Level Agent (BLA); Nagaraj A.C., also described as a BLA; his wife Savitha Malali; and B.N. Basavaraj, another BLA. Police have booked them under Sections 190, 192, 353(1), 353(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Dakshina Kannada District Congress Committee president Padmaraj R. Poojary alleged that Yuvaraj, one of the accused in the Mangaluru cases, was a BJP BLA-2 and that the other accused supported the party. Congress leader Mithun Rai alleged that false objections were being filed to remove eligible voters. These claims have not been established by the FIRs and remain part of the investigation.
Statewide count: 91,278 applications
Karnataka received 91,278 Form 7 applications between June 16 and October 4, according to data from the Chief Electoral Officer’s office. Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said on October 5 that no voter had been removed through these applications so far.
“Just because objections have been filed, no name has been deleted so far from the electoral roll,” Anbukkumar , said at a press conference, according to The News Minute. He said each application would be examined before the relevant Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) decided whether a name should be removed.
The state had received 58,220 Form 7 applications by September 23, the last day of the claims and objections period. The reported total reached 91,278 by October 4. The CEO’s office said none of these applications objected to a proposed inclusion; all sought deletion of an existing entry.
Bidar recorded the highest number, with 5,953 applications. Shivamogga followed with 5,936 and Dakshina Kannada with 5,534.
The 91,278 figure is the number of applications received, not the number of voters removed. As of October 5, the CEO said no voter had been deleted through this process. The applications still had to be checked and decided by the EROs.
What Form 7 is used for
Form 7 allows an elector to object to a proposed inclusion in the electoral roll, request deletion of an existing entry, or ask for their own name to be removed. Reasons for seeking deletion can include a voter’s death, being underage, having permanently shifted, being registered more than once or not being an Indian citizen.
The Election Commission’s guidelines require the applicant to provide the details of the voter whose entry is challenged and state the reason for the objection. The applicant is responsible for supporting the claim. The form also requires a declaration that the information is true to the best of the applicant’s knowledge and belief.
An objection does not by itself remove a voter’s name. The CEO said the ERO must issue notice to both the person who filed the objection and the voter concerned. A hearing is held after seven days. The officer then checks the documents and other information before deciding whether the name should be deleted.
The police complaints raise separate questions about whether information in some applications was false or whether forms were submitted without proper verification. Those questions are being investigated alongside the election officials’ review of the objections.
Earlier reports from other constituencies
Complaints about bulk Form 7 applications had surfaced in several constituencies before the latest FIRs as more than 4,000 applications seeking voter deletions had been submitted in multiple constituencies. Most of the voters named in those cases were Muslim.
According to The Hindu, In Babaleshwar constituency in Vijayapura district, 1,373 applications were received on September 22. Ten people filed 1,363 of them, the report said. Huchappa Ganiger reportedly submitted 493 applications over September 22 and 23, covering about 30 polling stations. He filed 423 applications on September 22 and 70 the following day. Govindaraj Mundur reportedly filed 413 applications on September 23 across 33 polling stations.
In Bhalki, Bidar district, at least 30 people together sought the removal of more than 1,700 names on September 23. One voter named Santosh reportedly filed 54 applications on September 22 and 120 on September 23.
The report also described two Bhalki forms on which the voters’ details were already printed while the objectors’ details were handwritten. In Basavakalyan, one voter filed 32 of the 37 applications received in a day; those forms named Muslim voters at one polling station. In Belthangady, Umesh Bangera reportedly filed 21 applications against voters at one polling station, citing “Absent/Permanently Shifted”.
These figures describe the applications reported in those constituencies. They do not establish whether every objection was false. Each application must be examined on its own grounds.
Ballari list concerned 7,561 voters
Another case arose in Ballari City, where election authorities received a list concerning 7,561 electors. The Hindu reported that T. Srinivas Mothkur, the Opposition leader in the Ballari City Corporation and the BJP’s BLA-1, first tried to submit Form 7 applications through Booth Level Officers.
In a letter dated September 21, Mothkur said some officers had refused to accept the applications, so he took the remaining ones to the Electoral Registration Officer. Election authorities replied that claims that voters were registered elsewhere, absent or permanently shifted were not supported by documents or other information.
Mothkur wrote again on September 22, saying he was ready to submit objections against 7,561 names in the draft electoral roll. Officials again said they could not verify voters’ registration on the basis of the complaint alone.
An FIR was registered at Brucepet police station on October 1 after Congress BLA Goutham S. complained about the matter. He alleged that Form 7 applications had been submitted against the 7,561 electors and that most of the names belonged to a minority community.
Mothkur told The Hindu that he had asked a BLA-2 to identify voters who were believed to have shifted or been absent. He said he submitted the list for verification and had neither sought deletion nor claimed the information was correct. Police will have to examine the applications, the letters and the declarations made with them.
Rules for bulk submissions
The CEO said an ERO could ask an objector to withdraw applications if the number exceeded the prescribed limit. The reported limits were 50 forms per BLA-2 or 10 forms per voter of the constituency. The CEO said all Form 7 applications would be processed before October 22.
In Ballari, election authorities had referred to instructions that a BLA could submit no more than 10 applications to a Booth Level Officer at a time or in a day. If a BLA submitted more than 30 applications during the claims and objections period, the ERO or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer had to cross-check them personally. The BLA was also required to submit a list and declare that the details had been personally verified.
The two accounts describe instructions given in different settings. In both, bulk filing does not remove the need to check the basis of each objection before deciding whether a voter’s name should be deleted.
Inquiry into false claims
Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer V. Anbukkumar said election officials had been directed to act against applicants who knowingly made false claims or objections through Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8. Such action would follow an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and could be taken under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The CEO said his office had not registered an FIR. The police cases concerning alleged misuse of Form 7 were filed by private individuals and were being investigated separately.
On October 1, Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and Congress legislators protested at the CEO’s office and demanded action over alleged bulk filings. Shivakumar said the CEO had directed electoral officers not to approve certain Form 7 objections without supporting material. For death-related claims, he cited the need for a death certificate; for duplicate entries, he said the second EPIC number should be provided.
A delegation led by state BJP president B.Y. Vijayendra, former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa and Assembly Opposition leader R. Ashoka met the state police chief on October 3. The delegation argued that filing multiple Form 7 applications was not, by itself, a criminal offence and said investigators should examine whether individuals knowingly supplied false information or forged documents, as per a report in the Indian Express.
Hearings and publication of the final roll
Form 7 applications are one part of the larger SIR exercise. Between June 16 and October 4, Karnataka received 22,05,171 applications across four electoral forms: 9,10,732 Form 6 applications, 4,677 Form 6A applications, 91,278 Form 7 applications and 11,98,484 Form 8 applications.
Election officials also generated 43,82,313 notices for voters classified under “No Mapping” and “Anomalies”. Of these, 43,55,818 had been delivered. Hearings were completed in 36,89,063 cases, or 84.69 per cent, while 6,66,755 remained pending.
These notices relate to separate verification categories; they are not Form 7 applications. The CEO said voters did not have to attend every hearing in person. Booth Level Officers could visit homes to verify documents, and an authorised family member could appear for a voter. An ERO could require a personal hearing where necessary.
The last hearing was scheduled for October 12. October 22 was the deadline to dispose of claims and objections, and Karnataka’s final electoral roll was scheduled for publication on October 27.
The CEO also said the Election Commission had directed Karnataka to hold a special enrolment drive for first-time voters and people left out of the final roll. He said Form 6 applications submitted for fresh inclusion after publication would not require the SIR-specific declaration.
The final figures will show how many Form 7 applications were examined, accepted or rejected, and how many led to changes in the electoral roll. As of October 5, the CEO’s position was that no voter had been removed through these applications.
Related:
Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?
SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls
The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast