Custodial voting prohibition bars Rajya Sabha ballot access, with no discretion to override the statutory exception.

Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 imposes a mandatory bar on voting by a person confined in prison or in lawful police custody, with only a limited exception for preventive detention; the petitioner therefore had no entitlement to cast a Rajya Sabha vote from custody. The right to vote in this context is statutory, and the court had no discretion to relax the prohibition. The writ petition was also defective for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the Chief Election Commission of India and the Secretary, Rajasthan State Assembly were not impleaded, providing an additional ground against relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person confined in prison and in lawful police custody, but not under preventive detention, can be permitted to vote in a Rajya Sabha election. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue (i): Whether a person confined in prison and in lawful police custody, but not under preventive detention, can be permitted to vote in a Rajya Sabha election.

Analysis: Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 creates a general prohibition against voting by a person confined in prison or in lawful custody of the police, while carving out only one exception for persons subjected to preventive detention. The right to vote is statutory and not a common law or constitutional entitlement in the present context, and the prohibition applies equally to elections to the Council of States. The provision is mandatory and leaves no discretion to permit voting from custody.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to be allowed to cast his vote while in prison custody.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Analysis: The petition was also found defective because the Chief Election Commission of India and the Secretary, Rajasthan State Assembly were treated as necessary parties and had not been impleaded. This deficiency furnished an additional ground against granting the relief sought.

Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar under Section 62(5) controlled the controversy, and the petition failed on merits as well as on maintainability grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A person confined in prison or in lawful police custody cannot vote in an election, except where preventive detention is involved, and the court has no discretion to override this statutory bar.

---