Delhi Poll Official Seeks FIR Against BJP Booth Agent Over 36 False Form 7s in Mustafabad; Pattern of Targeted Deletions Emerges Across States

New Delhi: The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of Delhi’s Mustafabad Assembly constituency has lodged a police complaint seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against a Booth Level Agent (BLA) registered with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly submitting false Form 7 applications to delete living voters from the electoral rolls during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

District Election Officer Ajay Kumar told The Hindu that independent verification of the newspaper’s October 30 report confirmed 36 of the 37 Form 7s filed by the agent were false or fabricated. In polling part 129 of Mustafabad, the forms sought deletions of electors citing reasons such as “absent/permanently shifted” or “death.” Scrutiny by the Booth Level Officer and Assistant ERO found three persons listed as dead were alive at their registered addresses; nearly all others were also found residing there. Only one application was found genuine.

According to Election Commission of India (ECI) records till October 28, the forms were filed by Chandra Shekhar Nainwal, listed as a BJP-appointed BLA-2. Nainwal denied filing the forms, being an agent, or any association with the BJP when contacted by The Hindu. Despite the denial, nine additional applications naming him as objector were filed on October 29-30. The ERO’s press release stated that action under Section 31 was invoked because the objector “knowingly made false statement or declaration” in connection with the preparation or revision of the electoral roll. Verification of other Form 7s in the constituency continues.

The Mustafabad episode is part of a larger pattern. The Hindu analysis showed that of 1,021 Form 7s received in Mustafabad till November 3, over 77 per cent (787 applications, or 94 per cent of third-party requests) named 20 BJP BLAs as objectors. All targeted Muslim electors, and several voters were found living at their addresses. Of the 20 named BLAs, 16 denied submitting, signing, or having knowledge of the forms; one said he had resigned after discovering misuse of his details. Many exceeded ECI limits on bulk submissions (individuals are capped at 10 Form 7s; BLAs may submit bulk forms only with proper undertakings). Petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri in the ongoing Delhi SIR case before the Supreme Court have written to the Chief Election Commissioner seeking FIRs for forgery, identity fraud and false declarations, plus a comprehensive audit of all Form 7s across Delhi.

Similar incidents have surfaced in other states. In Telangana’s Musheerabad constituency (Hyderabad), police registered the state’s first FIR on Form 7 misuse against BJP BLA S. Balachander. He allegedly attempted to submit 30 pre-printed Form 7s on September 28 seeking deletion of Muslim voters—including a Congress BLA and members of one extended family—from polling station 210, claiming they had permanently shifted. Field verification on October 1 confirmed all 30 were residents of the area. The forms were rejected; Balachander was booked under BNS sections for false information and cheating, and under Section 31 of the RP Act. Similar pre-printed forms targeting Muslims appeared in Goshamahal and Bahadurpura.

In Karnataka, multiple FIRs have been registered amid bulk Form 7 filings. In Ballari City, an FIR (the sixth in the state over Form 7 misuse) was registered on October 1 against BJP BLA-1 and city corporation opposition leader T. Srinivas Mothkur (also known as Srinivas Motkar) after a Congress BLA complained that he sought deletion or re-verification of 7,561 electors—overwhelmingly from minority communities—claiming they were absent or had shifted. Election officials had earlier rejected the claims for lack of supporting documents. Other FIRs include cases in Belagavi (against a BJP leader for 198 Muslim voters), Bengaluru’s Malleswaram (136 voters, with allegations of forged signatures), Bhalki, Babaleshwar (thousands of bulk objections by a few individuals), and Kodagu. Statewide, over 91,000 Form 7s were received between June and early October, with significant third-party and bulk applications often targeting Muslim names; many involved pre-filled forms. Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar staged a protest at the CEO’s office demanding action.

In Uttar Pradesh, the ECI told the Supreme Court that bulk Form 7s submitted during the earlier SIR phase were found to be false after field checks and were not acted upon. A Congress MP’s petition alleged systematic misuse, including 32 applications in one constituency (Hata, Kushinagar) targeting one community (two signed by BLOs) and hundreds more against Muslim electors in Khalilabad (Sant Kabir Nagar). There were also cases of forged signatures, including one involving a person who could not sign, leading to a delayed FIR over 26 attempted deletions. The apex court directed corrective steps.

Form 7 is the statutory form for objecting to the inclusion of a name or seeking deletion of an existing elector (on grounds such as death, permanent shifting, or duplicate enrolment). Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950, makes it an offence—punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment, fine, or both—to knowingly make a false written statement or declaration in connection with the preparation or revision of electoral rolls. The ECI has capped individual Form 7 submissions and directed action against false declarations, yet reports of pre-printed forms, identity misuse, and community-targeted bulk filings have persisted across states during the SIR exercise. Critics, including petitioners before the Supreme Court, argue that such practices risk disenfranchising eligible voters and undermine the integrity of the electoral rolls. Election authorities maintain that proper verification and hearings precede any deletion, and that false forms have been rejected where detected.

The Mustafabad police complaint marks one of the clearest instances yet of formal action against a named party agent after independent verification confirmed large-scale false claims. With inquiries ongoing in Delhi and parallel cases in other states, the pattern raises questions about the scale of misuse of the Form 7 process during the SIR and the effectiveness of safeguards against organised attempts to manipulate voter lists.