Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court has stayed further investigation into a criminal case registered against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Dr. Ravi Basalingappagowda Patil and others over allegations that approximately 198 fabricated Form No. 7 applications were submitted to fraudulently remove Muslim voters’ names from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. The order was passed on October 13, 2026, by Justice Venkatesh Naik T, sitting at Dharwad, who found that the case raised issues similar to those considered by a coordinate bench of the High Court in earlier proceedings concerning objections filed for the deletion of voters’ names.

The High Court’s interim intervention came at a stage when the competent electoral authority had not yet adjudicated upon the disputed Form No. 7 applications. Taking note of an earlier order passed by a coordinate bench at Bengaluru, the Court considered it appropriate to stay the investigation until the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for October 29, 2026, and the State has been permitted to seek modification of the interim order if circumstances warrant such a request.

The case brings into focus an important legal question concerning the relationship between the statutory process for revising electoral rolls and the criminal law governing allegations of fraudulent applications. While objections seeking the deletion of names from electoral rolls may be submitted through the prescribed electoral procedure, allegations that such objections were fabricated or filed with dishonest intentions may also raise questions of criminal liability. The immediate issue before the High Court, however, was whether the criminal investigation should proceed when the electoral authorities had not yet determined the validity of the applications in question.

According to the prosecution, the complaint was lodged by a booth-level agent associated with the Indian National Congress. It was alleged that the accused persons, including Dr. Patil, had acted together to target voters belonging to a particular community by submitting a large number of allegedly fabricated Form No. 7 applications to the Booth Level Officer attached to the election section of the Belagavi Mahanagar Palike.

The complaint alleged that the applications concerned approximately 198 voters whose addresses were originally reflected in the electoral records. It was claimed that the accused deliberately sought to have Muslim voters’ names removed by raising objections through the prescribed form. The allegations consequently raised concerns about the possible misuse of the electoral roll revision process and the integrity of the procedure for determining voter eligibility.

Following the complaint, the Station House Officer of Market Police Station, Belagavi, registered an FIR against the accused. The police also issued a notice under Section 35(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with the investigation.

Dr. Patil was booked under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 353, 61(2), 3(5), 3(7), and 192, read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). These provisions formed part of the criminal case arising from the alleged submission of fabricated applications and the alleged concerted conduct of the accused. The precise application of the individual provisions, and whether the allegations ultimately satisfy their statutory ingredients, remain matters to be examined in accordance with law.

The proceedings also followed an earlier decision of a Sessions Court in Belagavi granting anticipatory bail to Dr. Patil in connection with the same FIR. At that stage, the Sessions Court had observed that the mere filing of Form No. 7 applications did not automatically result in the deletion of voters’ names. Electoral authorities were required to undertake their own verification before taking an appropriate decision.

A similar consideration subsequently arose before the Karnataka High Court in two petitions concerning other BJP booth-level agents. In W.P. No. 31887 of 2026 and W.P. No. 31893 of 2026, filed by G.S. Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, respectively, a coordinate bench sitting at Bengaluru had taken the prima facie view that a criminal complaint relating to disputed Form No. 7 applications appeared premature because the competent electoral authority had not yet decided the objections. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde had stayed the investigation in those proceedings.

Relying on the similarity between those matters and the case before it, the Dharwad bench decided that judicial discipline required a consistent interim approach. The order does not amount to a final determination that the allegations against Dr. Patil and the other accused are false. Rather, it temporarily restrains further investigation while the High Court considers the matter at the next hearing.

Arguments of the Parties:

Arguments on behalf of Dr. Ravi Basalingappagowda Patil

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for Dr. Patil, challenged the criminal proceedings on the ground that the FIR had allegedly been initiated at the instance of rival political parties. The defence sought to portray the prosecution as politically motivated and argued that the criminal process should not be permitted to operate independently of the statutory mechanism governing objections to electoral rolls.

According to the submissions, the dispute arose from applications filed under Form No. 7 during the SIR exercise. The defence emphasised that the Election Commission had issued a notification permitting the filing of bulk Form No. 7 objections. Therefore, the mere submission of several applications could not, by itself, be treated as proof of a criminal offence.

The principal submission was that the law entrusted the task of examining such objections to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), who was required to determine whether the applications were genuine and whether the names identified in them were liable to be deleted from the electoral rolls. Until the authority responsible for maintaining the electoral rolls examined the applications and arrived at a decision, the defence argued, the allegations should not be treated as an established instance of electoral fraud.

Shyam contended that the electoral process involved an independent verification mechanism. The submission of an objection did not automatically lead to the removal of a voter’s name. The competent authority was required to consider the material available, examine the relevant circumstances and decide whether the objection deserved acceptance. Consequently, the defence argued that the criminal proceedings had been initiated before the statutory process had reached the stage at which the allegations could be meaningfully assessed.

The defence further submitted that Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, could be invoked in the appropriate circumstances if the statutory requirements for criminal liability were satisfied. According to the argument advanced on behalf of Patil, the relevant question was whether the applications had been examined by the electoral authorities and whether the circumstances disclosed a legally sustainable basis for invoking the criminal provision.

Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act deals with the making of false declarations in connection with electoral rolls. Its application, however, depends on the statutory ingredients and the facts established in a particular case. The defence relied on the provision to argue that the alleged falsity of the applications and the consequences flowing from their submission required careful examination rather than an immediate criminal investigation proceeding alongside the electoral process.

Another significant contention concerned the alleged existence of similar FIRs against several individuals across Karnataka. Shyam submitted that the proceedings involving Dr. Patil were not isolated and that comparable criminal cases had been registered against persons who had allegedly participated in the Form No. 7 objection process. The defence argued that the High Court should consider the consistency of its approach in such matters, particularly when a coordinate bench had already stayed investigation in cases involving similar allegations.

In support of this submission, the defence drew attention to W.P. No. 31887 of 2026 and W.P. No. 31893 of 2026. Those petitions had been filed by BJP booth-level agents G.S. Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R, whose cases involved allegations connected with the filing of Form No. 7 applications. According to the defence, the coordinate bench had recognised that the complaints were premature because the electoral authorities had not yet adjudicated upon the applications.

The defence argued that the same reasoning applied to Dr. Patil’s case. If the statutory authority had not determined the validity of the objections, the criminal proceedings should not be permitted to advance on the assumption that the applications were necessarily fraudulent. On this basis, the defence sought protection against further investigation until the High Court could examine the legal issues.

The submission was therefore not limited to the allegation of political rivalry. It also rested on the sequence in which the electoral and criminal processes should operate, the statutory responsibility of the ERO, and the need to maintain consistency with an existing interim order of a coordinate bench.

Position of the State and the prosecution

The FIR, as described in the proceedings, was founded on a complaint made by a Congress party booth-level agent. The prosecution alleged that Dr. Patil and the other accused had acted together to secure the deletion of Muslim voters’ names by submitting approximately 198 fabricated Form No. 7 applications to the relevant Booth Level Officer in Belagavi.

The allegation was that the applications were not ordinary objections filed in good faith but were intended to exclude voters belonging to a particular community. According to the complaint, the voters concerned originally resided at the addresses reflected in the list, yet their names were allegedly targeted through the disputed applications.

The prosecution’s case thus concerned the alleged misuse of a lawful electoral procedure. The fact that the Election Commission permits objections to be filed under Form No. 7 does not, in itself, establish that every application submitted through that process is genuine. Where an application is alleged to contain fabricated particulars or to have been submitted with a dishonest purpose, the question of criminal liability may arise independently of the administrative decision on whether a voter’s name should be deleted.

The State’s position must therefore be distinguished from the defence’s contention that the existence of an electoral verification mechanism makes the criminal case premature. The complaint raised allegations of coordinated conduct and intentional targeting, whereas the defence maintained that the allegations could not be acted upon through criminal investigation before the ERO had examined the objections.

The police had registered the FIR and issued a notice under Section 35(1) of the BNSS. The registration of the case indicated that the allegations were being treated as matters requiring examination under the criminal law. However, the existence of an FIR does not establish the guilt of the accused, just as the absence of a decision by the electoral authority does not, by itself, establish that the allegations are false.

The supplied case summary does not set out a detailed counterargument by the State on every legal submission advanced by the defence. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute specific additional arguments to the prosecution or to suggest that the High Court had conclusively rejected a fully developed State response on the merits.

The material issue before the Court was whether further investigation should continue at that stage in view of the earlier order passed by a coordinate bench. The Court ultimately relied on the similarity between the factual circumstances and the reasoning adopted in the earlier proceedings, rather than making a final finding on the truth of the prosecution’s allegations.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Venkatesh Naik T of the Karnataka High Court, sitting at Dharwad, stayed further investigation in the FIR against Dr. Ravi Basalingappagowda Patil and the other accused until the next date of hearing. The order was passed on October 13, 2026, after the Court considered the submissions advanced by the defence and examined the relevance of an earlier interim order passed by a coordinate bench at Bengaluru.

The central consideration was the existence of two earlier petitions involving similar allegations relating to Form No. 7 applications. In W.P. No. 31887 of 2026 and W.P. No. 31893 of 2026, the coordinate bench had considered challenges brought by BJP booth-level agents G.S. Vasanthalakshmi and Deepak Singh R. Those proceedings concerned allegations arising from objections submitted for the deletion of names from electoral rolls.

In those cases, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde had taken the prima facie view that the complaints appeared premature because the competent electoral authority had admittedly not taken a decision on the applications. The investigation was stayed pending further consideration of the matters.

The Dharwad bench considered that reasoning relevant because the factual setting and the nature of the legal controversy before it were substantially similar. Both sets of proceedings involved criminal allegations arising from Form No. 7 objections, and in both situations the question of the electoral authority’s determination had assumed significance.

The Court accordingly observed that the factual matrix and the purport of the earlier order were similar to those in the present case. Having reached that conclusion, it considered that judicial discipline required it to adopt a consistent approach rather than take a different interim position on materially similar facts without sufficient reason.

The Court recorded the principle in its order in the following terms:

“In view of maintaining judicial discipline, it is just and proper to stay the investigation till the next date of hearing. The respondent-State is permitted to file an application for modification of the order if necessary.”

This observation forms the central basis of the interim relief. The Court did not independently determine, at this stage, whether the approximately 198 Form No. 7 applications were fabricated, whether the accused had acted with the intention of unlawfully deleting voters’ names, or whether the ingredients of the offences invoked in the FIR were satisfied. Instead, it considered the earlier judicial treatment of comparable cases sufficient to justify temporarily staying the investigation.

Judicial discipline and consistency between coordinate benches

One of the most important aspects of the order is its reliance on judicial discipline. Courts of coordinate jurisdiction are ordinarily expected to maintain consistency in their treatment of materially similar legal issues. Where a bench of a High Court has already considered an issue and adopted a particular approach, another coordinate bench generally follows that approach unless there is a legally sustainable reason to distinguish the case or refer the issue for consideration by a larger bench.

The principle promotes certainty, predictability and institutional coherence in judicial decision-making. It helps ensure that similarly situated litigants are not subjected to substantially different interim treatment merely because their matters are heard by different judges of the same court.

In the present case, the earlier order did not finally decide the legality of all Form No. 7 objections or establish a general rule that criminal proceedings arising from electoral roll objections must invariably be suspended. Its significance lay in the prima facie reasoning that, in the particular circumstances before the coordinate bench, the complaints appeared premature because the ERO had not yet decided the disputed applications.

Justice Venkatesh Naik T found that the circumstances before him were sufficiently similar to warrant the same interim approach. The stay was therefore based primarily on consistency with the earlier judicial order.

It is important to distinguish this reasoning from a final declaration of law on the relationship between electoral proceedings and criminal investigation. The Court’s order, as described in the case summary, was an interim measure designed to preserve consistency pending the next hearing. It did not conclusively resolve the broader legal question of whether, or in what circumstances, criminal investigation may proceed before an electoral authority adjudicates upon an objection.

Significance of the Electoral Registration Officer’s role

The dispute also highlights the statutory role of the Electoral Registration Officer in maintaining electoral rolls. Form No. 7 is used to submit objections seeking the deletion of a name from an electoral roll, subject to the applicable electoral laws, rules and directions. Such objections are part of the administrative process through which the accuracy of electoral records is examined.

The defence argued that the ERO was the competent authority to determine the validity of the applications and that no adverse conclusion should be drawn before that determination. The reasoning adopted by the coordinate bench, and followed for interim purposes by the Dharwad bench, placed significance on the fact that the electoral authority had not yet decided the disputed applications.

This approach recognises that the mere submission of a deletion request does not automatically result in the removal of a voter’s name. The statutory verification process remains important, and the authority must decide whether the relevant requirements for deletion have been met.

However, the distinction between an administrative objection and an alleged criminal act remains legally important. An application may ultimately be rejected by the ERO without necessarily proving that its author committed a criminal offence. Conversely, an application’s submission through an officially recognised procedure does not automatically exclude the possibility of criminal liability if the statutory ingredients of an offence are independently established.

The question is therefore not simply whether the ERO has accepted or rejected the applications. It is also whether the allegations disclose a legally sustainable criminal case and whether the investigation can proceed at the relevant stage. The High Court’s interim order leaves these issues open for further consideration.

Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950

The defence specifically relied on Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, arguing that the provision could be invoked in the appropriate circumstances after the electoral authorities had examined the objections. Section 31 addresses false declarations in connection with electoral rolls.

The provision is relevant because allegations involving fabricated applications for the deletion of voters’ names may raise questions concerning the making of false declarations. Nevertheless, the precise application of Section 31 depends on its statutory language and the facts established in the individual case. The defence’s submission that the electoral authority should first adjudicate upon the applications was an argument advanced in support of staying the investigation; it should nt be understood as a final judicial determination that