ECI orders probe into Form-7 fraud charge after Karnataka CM Shivakumar’s protest
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a probe into the bulk filing of Form-7 applications seeking deletion of names from the electoral rolls, hours after Karnataka Chief Minister D. K. Shivakumar led a five-hour protest outside the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in Bengaluru. Following the directive, Mr. Shivakumar called off the demonstration.
ECI directive and action points
Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka V. Anbu Kumar instructed all Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to initiate action against applicants who “knowingly” make false statements or declarations while filing claims or objections in Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8. He said EROs should proceed under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, once applicants are found to have submitted false information.
“However, such action shall be preceded by an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960,” Mr. Kumar said, noting that there had been instances of bulk filing of Form-7 applications and that some submissions were “alleged to be not genuine.”
Background: Allegations of targeted deletions
The protest, staged by the Chief Minister and several Cabinet Ministers outside the CEO’s office in Bengaluru, was mounted against what the government alleges is a coordinated attempt to purge voters—particularly Muslims, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes—from the rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Form-7 is used to object to the inclusion of a name or to seek its deletion from the voter list.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Shivakumar alleged that “pre-filled” Form-7s were being filed in bulk across the State by workers of the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (Secular), asserting that targeted voters had either “shifted” or were “absent.” He said many of the applications were false or forged.
According to the Chief Minister, in at least two cases—in Belagavi and Vijayapura—BJP workers who had filed Form-7s in bulk withdrew them after being warned that punitive action would follow if the claims were found to be false. In written declarations, those who withdrew the forms reportedly acknowledged they had made a mistake.
Key developments and legal steps
Karnataka Police registered five FIRs on Thursday (October 1, 2026) over the bulk Form-7 filings. The complaints invoked provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, rather than the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because only election officials are empowered to lodge complaints under the latter law. Mr. Shivakumar has urged the poll body to take suo motu action and lodge criminal complaints where warranted.
In his directive, CEO Anbu Kumar emphasized that any action against applicants would be rooted in statutory process—first with an inquiry as per Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and, if guilt is established, with prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for making knowingly false statements or declarations.
Political reactions
The BJP defended its workers’ actions, maintaining that it is not a crime to flag names suspected to be ineligible. The party has argued that raising objections through the prescribed forms is a legitimate part of the electoral roll revision process.
Meanwhile, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, amplified concerns on social media, citing a report detailing how Form-7 applications were being filed in bulk against Muslim voters in Belagavi and other districts. Calling it further evidence of “vote theft,” Mr. Gandhi wrote: “Select people are targeted as BJP and EC officials collude to fill out Form 7 in bulk through automated means, and in the blink of an eye, millions vanish from the voter list. And all of this is controlled from the top.”
Mr. Shivakumar also referenced the report at his press conference, reiterating his charge that communities were being selectively targeted and that many of the objections lacked merit.
What happens next
With the ECI’s order, EROs across Karnataka are expected to scrutinize bulk-filed Form-7 submissions under the inquiry mechanism laid out in Rule 20. Where applications are found to be intentionally false, officials have been directed to initiate proceedings under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Chief Minister’s withdrawal of the protest followed these assurances of action.
The development places a sharper focus on the integrity of the SIR process and the handling of objections raised through Forms 6, 6A, 7 and 8. It also underscores the demarcation of roles between police action under general criminal law and the election authorities’ powers under electoral statutes.
Significance
The ECI’s intervention comes amid escalating political confrontation in Karnataka over alleged targeted deletions from the voter rolls. By directing a formal inquiry and warning of penal consequences for knowingly false objections, the poll body has signaled a tighter enforcement posture while the revision of electoral rolls is underway. The outcome of the inquiries—and any subsequent prosecutions—will be closely watched as a test of safeguards against mass, and potentially motivated, deletions from the voter list.
