Form 7 was 'misused' by BJP to delete voters 'en masse' ahead of 2023 polls: Minister Priyank Kharge
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge on Thursday alleged that Form 7 was misused under the previous BJP government to delete voters "en masse", ahead of May 2023 Assembly polls.
His remarks followed claims by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who cited Karnataka's example, that votes of party supporters were being systematically deleted ahead of elections.
Form 7 is an application for objecting inclusion of the name of the other person, or seeking deletion of one's own name, or seeking deletion of any other person’s name in the electoral roll due to death or shifting.
Earlier in the day, addressing a press conference in New Delhi, Rahul Gandhi accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of protecting "vote chors" and people who have destroyed democracy, and cited data from Karnataka's Aland Assembly constituency to support his claim that votes of Congress supporters were being systematically deleted ahead of elections.
In Aland segment, someone tried to delete 6,018 votes and got caught by coincidence, he said, alleging that the names of voters of the Congress were being deleted systematically.
Kharge said, "The Vote Chori trail in Aland (in Kalaburagi district) is a shocking case of large-scale voter deletion. Ahead of the May 2023 Assembly election, Form 7 was misused under the BJP government to delete voters en masse."
In a post on X, he claimed that a total of 6,018 deletions were attempted using automated software and fake logins.
He said, "Verification showed 5,994 were forged, only 24 genuine. 2,494 voters were actually deleted before the fraud was caught. Strong Congress booths, especially with Dalit and minority voters, were targeted."
In one instance, 12 voters were deleted in just 14 minutes, pointing to a "sophisticated vote chori factory", Kharge said.
In another case, the identity of a 63-year-old woman was misused to delete 12 voters.
Noting that the Karnataka CID, which is investigating the case has sent 18 letters to the Election Commission of India seeking IP logs, OTP trails, device IDs, and login details, he alleged that the EC has refused to share the critical data.
The Minister said this raises serious questions. "Who approved these deletion records? Where is the OTP audit trail? When will deleted voters be restored? Why is ECI refusing to cooperate with CID? Who is the ECI trying to protect?"
"When the fraud is this clear, what more evidence is the ECI waiting for? Whom are they shielding?" he asked.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
