1997 (7) TMI 651 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds ban on prisoner voting, citing integrity of elections. Challenge based on Constitution dismissed.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which prohibits prisoners from ... - Issues involved: Constitutional validity of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenged based on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.Summary:The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which prohibits a person confined in prison from voting in an election. The argument was that this provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, specifically discriminating against under-trials and other detainees. The petitioner contended that the restriction on voting rights for prisoners denies dignity of life and constitutes discrimination under Article 14.The Court analyzed the reasonableness of the classification made by sub-section (5) of Section 62 in light of the objective to prevent criminalization of politics and maintain probity in elections. It was emphasized that laws excluding persons with criminal backgrounds from elections serve the constitutional purpose of ensuring free and fair elections. The Court noted the importance of maintaining law and order, especially during elections, and the need for restrictions to achieve this objective.The distinction between preventive detention and imprisonment on conviction was highlighted, justifying the separate classification of persons under preventive detention. The Court reasoned that allowing every person in prison to vote would pose logistical challenges in terms of security and resource allocation during elections. The restriction on voting for prisoners was deemed a logical consequence of their confinement and a reasonable classification to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.The Court reiterated that the right to vote is a statutory right, subject to limitations imposed by the law. Citing previous judgments, it emphasized that the right to vote is not a fundamental or common law right but a statutory one. Therefore, the challenge to the validity of sub-section (5) of Section 62 based on fundamental rights was deemed untenable, leading to the dismissal of the petition.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of sub-section (5) of Section 62, emphasizing that the right to vote is subject to statutory limitations and must be exercised as provided by the law.