Actor Prakash Raj has found himself at the centre of a legal controversy after a private complaint alleged that he possesses multiple voter ID cards in different states.
The complaint, filed by advocate Dilip Kumar before a Bengaluru court, claims that Prakash Raj has voter registrations in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. The complainant argues that Indian election laws allow a person to be registered as a voter at only one place at a time. While individuals may own homes or reside in multiple states, they cannot legally maintain multiple active voter registrations.
Under the Representation of the People Act, a citizen can vote only from one constituency and should have only one valid voter registration. Multiple registrations can potentially lead to electoral irregularities and are therefore prohibited. However, the existence of duplicate voter registrations does not automatically prove wrongdoing, as such cases can sometimes arise due to administrative errors, migration between states, or failure to remove an old registration after changing residence.
According to the complaint, the 48th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) court had issued summons to Prakash Raj on two occasions, directing him to appear before the court. It is alleged that he did not respond to the summonses, following which the court reportedly issued a non-bailable warrant to secure his presence.
A non-bailable warrant is a more serious legal measure generally issued when a person repeatedly fails to appear before a court despite being summoned.
Prakash Raj, however, has denied the reports. Taking to social media, the actor said that claims about a non-bailable warrant being issued against him were "fake news". His statement directly challenges media reports and suggests that the information being circulated may be inaccurate or incomplete.
The matter is currently at a preliminary stage. The key questions that remain are whether Prakash Raj actually has multiple active voter registrations, whether the court formally issued a non-bailable warrant, and whether any duplicate registrations were intentional or the result of administrative errors. These issues are likely to be examined through further legal proceedings and verification of Election Commission records.
