Karnataka Form 7 Row: False Voter Deletion Claims Can Mean Jail, Fine Under Law

By KUMAR VIKRAM

A Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer order directs election officials across all 224 Assembly constituencies to act against applicants who knowingly make false statements in Form 7 and other electoral forms. The law provides for imprisonment, a fine, or both where a false written declaration is knowingly made.

New Delhi, October 2, 2026 — A new order from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, has put the legal consequences of allegedly false claims made during electoral-roll revision under the spotlight.

The order, dated October 1, 2026, is addressed to electoral authorities across Karnataka and specifically refers to instances of bulk filing of Form 7 applications before Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). It directs the concerned EROs to take action where an applicant has knowingly made a false statement or declaration in Forms 6, 6A, 7 or 8.

The order cites Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and says such action should follow an inquiry under Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

What is Form 7?

Form 7 is used to object to the proposed inclusion of a person in an electoral roll or to seek deletion of an existing entry. The Election Commission’s Form 7 guidelines specify reasons such as death, being underage, being absent or permanently shifted, already being enrolled, or not being an Indian citizen. The applicant is required to substantiate the reason given for the objection or deletion.

The form also contains a declaration that the information provided is true to the applicant’s knowledge and belief.

That declaration has a specific legal consequence.

What does Section 31 say?

Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 deals with false declarations connected with electoral rolls.

It covers a written statement or declaration made in connection with:

– preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll; or

– inclusion or exclusion of an entry from an electoral roll.

Where a person makes such a statement knowing it to be false, believing it to be false, or not believing it to be true, the law provides for imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.

The Election Commission’s own Form 7 guidelines expressly warn applicants that making a false declaration is punishable under Section 31.

This means that filing a Form 7 objection is not, by itself, an offence. The legal issue arises where a declaration covered by Section 31 is knowingly false or made without belief in its truth.

What happens after an objection is filed?

Rule 20 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provides for a summary inquiry into claims and objections for which notice has been given.

The registration officer records a decision after the inquiry. The rules also allow the officer to require the claimant, objector or person objected to appear personally, and to require evidence to be given on oath.

A bulk filing or a large number of objections does not automatically establish that every application is false. The legal question in an individual case would include what was stated in the application, what the applicant knew or believed, and what emerges from the prescribed inquiry.

What does the Karnataka order say?

The order says the Karnataka CEO’s office had received information about bulk applications in Form 7 before EROs and allegations that some forms were not genuine.

It directs EROs to take action under Section 31 against applicants who knowingly make false statements or declarations.

It further specifies that such action should be preceded by an inquiry under Rule 20.

The direction applies to electoral authorities covering all 224 Assembly constituencies in Karnataka, making the order broader than a single constituency or district.

What does the reported recording show?

A recording published by Vartha Bharati features a reporter speaking to a couple identified in the recording as BJP workers from the Madikeri Assembly constituency.

According to the transcript, one person says she filed Form 7 objections against 10 people, while the other says he also filed objections against 10 people. Asked how many people had filed objections from their booth, the person says the figure was 50.

The reporter also asks where the printed Form 7 applications came from. The response, according to the supplied translation, is that they were provided by the party office in Somwarpet.

The recording should be treated as an allegation and evidence requiring verification; the transcript alone does not establish whether individual Form 7 claims were legally false, whether all 50 applications contained false declarations, or whether any applicant had the knowledge or intent required under Section 31.

What could this mean for other states?

The most important point is that Section 31 is a central statutory provision, not a Karnataka-specific rule. Its application to electoral-roll declarations therefore extends beyond Karnataka.

Similarly, Form 7 is part of the electoral-roll framework governed by the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules. The Election Commission’s current Form 7 itself carries the warning concerning Section 31.

The practical implication is that if similar allegations of knowingly false bulk applications emerge elsewhere, election authorities would have the same statutory framework available to examine them.

But the legal threshold matters: bulk filing alone does not establish a Section 31 offence. There would need to be an examination of the individual declarations and the circumstances in which they were made.

For the wider SIR debate, that creates a significant legal distinction: the right to object to a voter entry remains part of the electoral-roll process, but knowingly submitting a false declaration can carry criminal consequences.

Gyanesh Kumar Under Pressure: 14 Objections, SIR Row and Calls for CEC’s Exit Put ECI Under Scrutiny

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author